Except that allegedly, there's no benefit to the 360 HD-DVD drive for gaming. The sole purpose is so that you can watch HD-DVDs. If Microsoft isn't making their money back on licensing and peripherals (which is how they can sell the 360 at a loss and still end up making a profit). It's unlikely that they're selling the HD-DVD drive at a loss since there is no peripheral market specific to the drive+360, nor will they get revenue from licenses for developing for the drive+360 (because games aren't supposed to use this drive).
It boils down to this: Microsoft is either releasing the drive at a loss to compete with Sony/promote HD-DVD over Bluray, in which case they shouldn't care what people connect the drive to, or they're selling it at a price point where they can make a profit on it, in which case they shouldn't care what people connect the drive to.
I wonder if bots have started replacing 'dot' with '.' and 'at' with '@'.
I wonder, then, if adding the word 'dot' to your e-mail address would deter bots. Probably not, though. They'd probably just try all permutations of '.' and 'dot'.
But as happened with DVD, it's possible that a company will produce a player which is 'hackable' to re-enable reading/decoding of both discs content (similar to the early Apex and Sampo players, which could be soft-modded to change the region, be regionless, macrovisionless, etc). At worst, a sequence of keypresses could switch between HD-DVD and Bluray mode.
Not that I'll be investing in either format, however....
I mostly concur. Right now, DVD is quite sufficient for me, and although it is still encumbered, that is apparently easy enough to break should I choose to do so.
I don't like the remote-disabling features of some of the next-gen protocols (someone on Slashdot once noted that one of them could pack player-key disabling code on new discs in the event that a player's manufacturer leaked their key, or some such nonsense).
The point is to discourage breaking the law. It's a cost-benefit issue.
If I can pirate a song that costs $1, with a 1% chance of being caught and fined, and the fine for that song is $30, then on average, piracy wins. I can pirate 100 $1 songs, get caught once on average, and pay $30 for what was "worth" $100. It's a good deal, and that doesn't begin to consider legal costs of the copyright holder (which I guarantee are more than $30) or the liklihood of being sued (probably less than 1%).
Why do you think that the claim against person A covered all downstream downloading? I've never heard anything even remotely resembling this argument.
If you're sharing, you're sharing. It doesn't really matter where you got the file. If Person A posts the entire contents of Terry Goodkind's latest novel to Person A's blog, and then Person B copies and pastes it into Person B's blog, Person B is still liable under the law. The fact that he got it from a non-licensed source doesn't change the fact that Person B is infringing on Goodkind's copyright.
I've been reading that the new MBPs with C2D run up to 20 degrees F cooler. I can't speak for whether it's the processor or a change to the default fan speed that causes this.
LOOP: Probably, what will happen is that it/will/ be "too late to turn back", but some progressive company will start offering non-DRM'd content (seeing a "new" market). They'll use slogans like, "It's your music. Do what YOU want." They'll charge a premium, but they'll be hugely successful, leading companies to start laxing DRM and possibly even removing it.
Then eventually they'll start seeing piracy again and they'll start looking at "new" solutions to address the issue, like restricting rights, protecting the digital path, requiring a license to play the content, and forcing your players to request the right to play music you've purchased. goto LOOP
My wife has an iPod. It's pretty nice. The interface is fantastic and clean, and the software for transferring music to it works reasonably well.
That said, I probably wouldn't want one. I'd just as soon have something cheaper, frankly, even if it meant that I couldn't play ITMS music.
And that brings me to the reason that iPods stay in the market: DRM. Apple has created an artificial need to stay with iPod if you use ITMS. Anyone who has purchased music through ITMS loses their ability to play their music on-the-go once they drop iPod (yeah, you can burn and rerip, losing a bit of quality and taking a/lot/ of time--realistically, most people will not do this).
If Zune had a better battery life (something certainly feasible to address) and could use Apple's DRM, it might have a fighting chance. As it is, I just don't see it happening.
None of them do. The trick was that only two of the Vista editions allow you to use the same copy of Vista in the virtualization as on the physical machine. Goes like this:
Not Ultimate/Business: Can't use Vista on VMWare on Vista (Vista on VMWare on Linux should be ok). Can't use DRM'd media Business/Ultimate: Can use Vista on VMWare on Vista. Can't use DRM'd media.
Well, the issue seems to be TPM. Microsoft cannot protect the media's data path if it is run in emulation, and the license for those technologies requires that they be able to do this. If they allowed you to run Vista in emulation with full media support, Microsoft would be breaking the law.
The 'software' is this copy of Vista, the 'licensed device' is this physical machine that Vista is running on.
You may not use this copy of Vista on this physical machine within a virtual hardware system.
I could also see this stopping you from using VMWare's "Use Physical Disk" feature if you dual-boot into Linux. However nothing in that says that you can't use the software (in general) in a virtual hardware system.
I don't think the corporate thing will be quite as big a deal as you're thinking. As I read it, the company basically sets up a server to handle authentication much in the same way that they might set up a server to handle windows updates. The corporate machines periodically check in with this server, which periodically checks in with Microsoft. Configuring the clients won't be a pain, because it will just be rolled in with the Group Policies that should be applied to each host. Configuring the server might be hard, but I doubt it--it's a pretty simple scheme. If there happen to be machines in the organization that must never touch the Internet, the company can purchase a retail key and activate over the phone.
There are levels of trust just like there are layers of security. Outsourced code is probably a little bit safer than offshored code, not to mention having economic benefits. It's also easier to prosecute people on our shores. We can't afford to go to war with China if we find something malicious in code/hardware that comes from that country.
Depends... I have to realign my PDA's screen almost every day, it seems. I also had a faulty Palm Pilot once that where alignment didn't last more than an hour. That one got replaced.
A good cleaning might help (if dust/dirt gets under the edge of the screen, it can screw up the alignment.) but that's a pain. Maybe these machines just aren't being taken care of like they should.
He's suggesting a solution. The first part of that solution is, "No one can e-mail you if they haven't e-mailed you before." This could be accomplished on the mail server level or in Procmail ruls.
Plausible deniablity doesn't mean shit when they're torturing you. If they don't know how many TC volumes you have, they don't know when they need to stop torturing you. It'd suck to finally give up the last of your keys, only to have them keep going at you because you might have more.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that allegedly, there's no benefit to the 360 HD-DVD drive for gaming. The sole purpose is so that you can watch HD-DVDs. If Microsoft isn't making their money back on licensing and peripherals (which is how they can sell the 360 at a loss and still end up making a profit). It's unlikely that they're selling the HD-DVD drive at a loss since there is no peripheral market specific to the drive+360, nor will they get revenue from licenses for developing for the drive+360 (because games aren't supposed to use this drive).
It boils down to this: Microsoft is either releasing the drive at a loss to compete with Sony/promote HD-DVD over Bluray, in which case they shouldn't care what people connect the drive to, or they're selling it at a price point where they can make a profit on it, in which case they shouldn't care what people connect the drive to.
Have you considered acquiring the address 'lordkaNOSPAM@whatever.com' instead?
I wonder if bots have started replacing 'dot' with '.' and 'at' with '@'.
I wonder, then, if adding the word 'dot' to your e-mail address would deter bots. Probably not, though. They'd probably just try all permutations of '.' and 'dot'.
But as happened with DVD, it's possible that a company will produce a player which is 'hackable' to re-enable reading/decoding of both discs content (similar to the early Apex and Sampo players, which could be soft-modded to change the region, be regionless, macrovisionless, etc). At worst, a sequence of keypresses could switch between HD-DVD and Bluray mode.
Not that I'll be investing in either format, however....
I mostly concur. Right now, DVD is quite sufficient for me, and although it is still encumbered, that is apparently easy enough to break should I choose to do so.
I don't like the remote-disabling features of some of the next-gen protocols (someone on Slashdot once noted that one of them could pack player-key disabling code on new discs in the event that a player's manufacturer leaked their key, or some such nonsense).
The point is to discourage breaking the law. It's a cost-benefit issue.
If I can pirate a song that costs $1, with a 1% chance of being caught and fined, and the fine for that song is $30, then on average, piracy wins. I can pirate 100 $1 songs, get caught once on average, and pay $30 for what was "worth" $100. It's a good deal, and that doesn't begin to consider legal costs of the copyright holder (which I guarantee are more than $30) or the liklihood of being sued (probably less than 1%).
Unfortunately, as another poster noted, the $750/instance is a statuatory compensation, which has nothing to do with the value of the song.
Why do you think that the claim against person A covered all downstream downloading? I've never heard anything even remotely resembling this argument.
If you're sharing, you're sharing. It doesn't really matter where you got the file. If Person A posts the entire contents of Terry Goodkind's latest novel to Person A's blog, and then Person B copies and pastes it into Person B's blog, Person B is still liable under the law. The fact that he got it from a non-licensed source doesn't change the fact that Person B is infringing on Goodkind's copyright.
I've been reading that the new MBPs with C2D run up to 20 degrees F cooler. I can't speak for whether it's the processor or a change to the default fan speed that causes this.
Sure, but there are a lot of people who /do/ use ITMS, and those people won't be jumping to a new product without losing a heavy investment in music.
LOOP: /will/ be "too late to turn back", but some progressive company will start offering non-DRM'd content (seeing a "new" market). They'll use slogans like, "It's your music. Do what YOU want." They'll charge a premium, but they'll be hugely successful, leading companies to start laxing DRM and possibly even removing it.
Probably, what will happen is that it
Then eventually they'll start seeing piracy again and they'll start looking at "new" solutions to address the issue, like restricting rights, protecting the digital path, requiring a license to play the content, and forcing your players to request the right to play music you've purchased.
goto LOOP
Exactly. Then they'll return their Zune and grumble a little, but they'll be completely stuck.
Actually, that's a really great reason to hope that the Zune is initially successful--so that maybe people will wake up and start understanding DRM.
My wife has an iPod. It's pretty nice. The interface is fantastic and clean, and the software for transferring music to it works reasonably well.
/lot/ of time--realistically, most people will not do this).
That said, I probably wouldn't want one. I'd just as soon have something cheaper, frankly, even if it meant that I couldn't play ITMS music.
And that brings me to the reason that iPods stay in the market: DRM. Apple has created an artificial need to stay with iPod if you use ITMS. Anyone who has purchased music through ITMS loses their ability to play their music on-the-go once they drop iPod (yeah, you can burn and rerip, losing a bit of quality and taking a
If Zune had a better battery life (something certainly feasible to address) and could use Apple's DRM, it might have a fighting chance. As it is, I just don't see it happening.
None of them do. The trick was that only two of the Vista editions allow you to use the same copy of Vista in the virtualization as on the physical machine. Goes like this:
Not Ultimate/Business: Can't use Vista on VMWare on Vista (Vista on VMWare on Linux should be ok). Can't use DRM'd media
Business/Ultimate: Can use Vista on VMWare on Vista. Can't use DRM'd media.
Well, the issue seems to be TPM. Microsoft cannot protect the media's data path if it is run in emulation, and the license for those technologies requires that they be able to do this. If they allowed you to run Vista in emulation with full media support, Microsoft would be breaking the law.
Why can't people understand this?
The 'software' is this copy of Vista, the 'licensed device' is this physical machine that Vista is running on.
You may not use this copy of Vista on this physical machine within a virtual hardware system.
I could also see this stopping you from using VMWare's "Use Physical Disk" feature if you dual-boot into Linux. However nothing in that says that you can't use the software (in general) in a virtual hardware system.
That's still cheaper than even the upgrade (which required you to have purchased Windows at some point in the past, too).
I don't think the corporate thing will be quite as big a deal as you're thinking. As I read it, the company basically sets up a server to handle authentication much in the same way that they might set up a server to handle windows updates. The corporate machines periodically check in with this server, which periodically checks in with Microsoft. Configuring the clients won't be a pain, because it will just be rolled in with the Group Policies that should be applied to each host. Configuring the server might be hard, but I doubt it--it's a pretty simple scheme. If there happen to be machines in the organization that must never touch the Internet, the company can purchase a retail key and activate over the phone.
There are levels of trust just like there are layers of security. Outsourced code is probably a little bit safer than offshored code, not to mention having economic benefits. It's also easier to prosecute people on our shores. We can't afford to go to war with China if we find something malicious in code/hardware that comes from that country.
Depends... I have to realign my PDA's screen almost every day, it seems. I also had a faulty Palm Pilot once that where alignment didn't last more than an hour. That one got replaced.
A good cleaning might help (if dust/dirt gets under the edge of the screen, it can screw up the alignment.) but that's a pain. Maybe these machines just aren't being taken care of like they should.
He's suggesting a solution. The first part of that solution is, "No one can e-mail you if they haven't e-mailed you before." This could be accomplished on the mail server level or in Procmail ruls.
This is the first I've heard of it, too. I read Slashdot regularly, but I usuall don't pay that much attention to the Slashbacks.
How well does it work on PPC, or other non-x86-based architectures?
You're going to have your laptop version encrypted so that if the laptop is lost, the information cannot be recovered.
You're going to lock up the unencrypted backup in a safe.
Plausible deniablity doesn't mean shit when they're torturing you. If they don't know how many TC volumes you have, they don't know when they need to stop torturing you. It'd suck to finally give up the last of your keys, only to have them keep going at you because you might have more.