What you describe leaves open the analog hole. Hollywood and the RIAA don't want that to happen, and Microsoft has given every indication that they intend to cooperate.
Please give me some evidence of this. True, when you've booted in DRM-mode there is no analog hole. And when you are booted in "insecure" mode you can't access the DRM'd files. However, you are still making a choice.
IMHO they believe that normal PCs, running normal Windows, is the best gaming platform.
The XBox uses maybe 3 components of a normal PC - it's farther from normal then many people think. One could say the same thing about the PS2 and it's standard DVD drive, or the GC's firewire ports. As far as the OS? It's Windows based but trust me, it's definitely not Windows as you know it.
It's not a rediculous argument. The problem is these "mod-chips" that they are selling for profit contain code from Microsoft. I repeat: they are selling Microsoft's code for profit. Run a software company, then you'll appreciate why this is illegal.
These numbers are all speculation. Micorsoft has never released these numbers, and based on the quick drop of commodity hardware even if it was true a year a go it's not true now. I've heard that whatever the loss is MS needs to sell an extra controller and 4 games to break even.
If an XBox were a car... accept that it's not. You can't compare and industry that relies on physical value to an industry that relies on intellectual property (in this case, video games). If you could clone cars as easily as you could copy software, you'd bet that there'd be anti-circumvention laws for copy protected cars.
Dangit, if I buy the hardware and want to modify it, I payed for it--it's mine--why shouldn't I be able to?
Yes. I do agree with you on this one. What I don't agree with is making a business out of selling a device that breaks copy protection.
However, there's a flip side of this coin. If Microsoft (or the MPAA or any other org or company) wants to employ strong copy protection, they better have a system in place to promptly and cost effectively replace my disk if it get's scratched or broken. It's got to go both ways. I'm going to get really pissed off when my $50 XBox game stops working and I have no backup of the disk.
How can soldering some IC chips on a PCB be illegal?
It's not - that's what people are missing. Open up your XBox and do whatever you want with it. Create a business that sells circumvention devices and it's a whole other story.
Accept that when the EFF and others have investigated Paldium etc. they've found that MS is essentially giving the user the right to choose. A non-DRM OS will not be able to play DRM-protected music (no big deal here since I don't plan on buying that crap). However, MS wants to give their users the CHOICE to buy DRM protected music, as well as the choice to rip MP3's or WMA's of their favorite CD. Just because Microsoft is supporting DRM compatible junk, doesn't mean that they are exclusively supporting it. I've been Beta testing WMP9 and not only do you have the option to disable DRM, you don't even have to install it in the first place.
In a past life, I supported over 100 NT servers running file/print, websphere, domino and clustered db2 but now I do server consolidations to Linux mainframes. Believe me, it is most definitely not common knowledge that any MS OS regularly achieves five 9's.
Yes, in your past life there was also NT3.51 which was a joke of a server OS. NT4 was OK but we all scheduled weekly reboots. We're talking Win2K. It's a world of difference. I'll agree that five 9's is virtually impossible if you have a box on the 'Net that requires constant security patches. I'm just saying that for boxes that on on Intranet's that don't require the latest security patch, it's possible to run a very long time without a system failure.
Instead of almost asking questions in an assuming tone maybe you should actually do a bit of research. Everything you've mentioned, and a lot more can be done via the CLI and/or via scripting. Actually, with proper scripting you don't even need to open up a secure telnet or terminal services session. Also, if you must use the GUI, the MMC can manage multiple machines at once.
Did they calculate in the cost of Downtime w/ Microsoft Win.?
It is common knowledge that properly configured Windows boxes achieve at least "five 9's" of uptime. The real issue to focus on is cost due to security issues. Internal servers don't really suffer from this as much, but Web servers, Mail servers, etc. are. Although Linux has had it's fair share of security issues as well, most agree that Windows is still a less secure OS. It would be nice if they could quantify this as part of the study.
The analog in Windows would be... VNC, ???, and batch files?
Try Terminal Services and Windows Scripting Host. I am not a Windows SysAdmin, but I know many. The last company I worked for had one SysAdmin for about 50 Win2K desktops, ~12 Windows servers, 1 Linux box, and two unix-based network storage devices. The servers were all offsite aside from a couple of test machines. Using Terminal Services he could easily bring up the remote machines to configure them. Using WSH, he scripted IIS config's, user management, Exchange configs, etc. To add a new web site to IIS or to create a new user one doesn't even need a GUI. I'll be the first to admit that MS should not have GUI's on it's enterprise servers, but it's also not required. Everything can be done at the CLI and script level. This is where your true efficiency is. Now add the fact that almost every configuration in Windows.NET server is XML based and your scripting job just got a whole lot easier. Plus, you'll be able to script in Perl or C# as opposed to VBScript. I know that'd save me tons of headache!
Although I agree that devices can be made to aid one to read the text, it's still a visual medium just like how phone is an audio medium yet has utilities to help the deaf use it. However, the web is a much better medium for a deaf person, just like the phone is a much better medium for a blind person.
Consider the fact that the World-Wide Web is not a visual medium. It's a data medium.
What you're describing is the Internet, not the Web.
Web pages are distributed as hypertext over the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). Hypertext is defined as (emphasis added), "A computer-based text retrieval system that enables a user to access particular locations in webpages or other electronic documents by clicking on links within specific webpages or documents."
Web pages are distributed as hypertext over the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). Hypertext is defined as (emphasis added), "A computer-based text retrieval system that enables a user to access particular locations in webpages or other electronic documents by clicking on links within specific webpages or documents."
Besides the fact that you are wrong about IE (it's still faster then recent Moz builds) you're forgetting that IE is not the only competing browser. Opera is still the fastest and lightest browser by far.
Assuming this person had contacted Southwest's webmasters (which as I said they should have,) what would you do next?
Use the phone. It's great that you can post to/., and read these long threads! However, consider the fact that the web is a visual medium which is obviously not very condusive to your disability. It would seem logical that, if that medium wasn't suiting you in a particular case, you would then use a medium that better suited your abilities. You can still hear, and the phone is a very easy way to use Southwests services. Not to mention, regardless of disability, it is also the most popular method of using Southwest's services. If I were in charge of Southwest's web site would I make it standards compliant so that accessibility utilities worked properly? Yes I would, but I wouldn't want the government forcing me to do it.
Before people flame the ADA and access to the web for the blind, they should remember that they too could become blind someday.
Great point - always put yourself in someones elses shoes. If I go blind and need to order plane tickets I've decided that I will use this special device called a PHONE. The web is a PRIMARILY VISUAL medium. Why would I, a blind person, expect to experience it in even a fraction of the way a seeing person can? I'll admit that for both the phone and web there are utilities to help the hearing and visually impared respectively. However, when you have a disability you should use the medium that makes the most sense, not expect businesses to invest millions in making a medium something it's not. The web should be accessible and should be w3c compliant so that text-to-speech systems (etc.) work well. However, beyond standards compliance I don't think a business should be forced to make the web something it's not. Southwest airlines has a toll-free phone number. I'm sure a blind person can order tickets very easily just like the majority of other customers who still use that medium.
First off, Microsofts gaming network is closed off.
This is the best possible thing they could have done. Instead of users paying multiple fees to multiple companies, using different software with different functionality and UI's, dealing with different support channels, there is a single, unified system that's easy to use. When Joe is on the system playing one game, Jane can see him and join in. When I'm on my PS2 playing on EA's servers, my friend on Tecmo's servers won't be notified that I'm online.
I agree with you. However, this also doesn't prevent unique creations from being created on the platform either. I wouldn't say that the XBox was designed from the ground up to be a shovelware console platform, rather, I'd say that it's designed from the ground up to be easy to develop for. It just so happens that shovelware finds it's home on the easiest to develop, and most popular console. Xbox has the first of these, now it just needs to become popular.
Pardon me sir but have no clue what engineering is.
Welcome to the real world. This is not acadamia purist BS. Noone said it's just about being the fastest, but it's the fastest, easiest to develop for amonth the 3 consoles (GC coming in a close second), and it's cost of production is theoretically decreasing quickly because of the use of standard parts.
The design of the XBox is in it's first generation, but it's a very good design. Thank you for insulting my intelligence though.
You should reevaluate your stance. Many objectively (read: w/o blind MS hate) agree that the XBox is the most powerful system and the most elegant to develop for. It was most definitely not poorly engineered.
The PS2 lost money initially and so did the Gamecube. Granted, the XBox is losing money a littler longer then the other two, but it's still very typical for the industry.
But none of this really matters. The fundamental point is that money for console systems has always been made off the royalties off the games, not the hardware. Sony is just as aggressive against piracy devices as MS is.
I used the term loosely. Essentially, Microsoft, IBM, Apple, and a few other industry heavyweights got together to lobby against government enforced DRM.
I used the term loosely. Essentially, Microsoft, IBM, Apple, and a few other industry heavyweights got together to lobby against government enforced DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
What you describe leaves open the analog hole. Hollywood and the RIAA don't want that to happen, and Microsoft has given every indication that they intend to cooperate.
Please give me some evidence of this. True, when you've booted in DRM-mode there is no analog hole. And when you are booted in "insecure" mode you can't access the DRM'd files. However, you are still making a choice.
IMHO they believe that normal PCs, running normal Windows, is the best gaming platform.
The XBox uses maybe 3 components of a normal PC - it's farther from normal then many people think. One could say the same thing about the PS2 and it's standard DVD drive, or the GC's firewire ports. As far as the OS? It's Windows based but trust me, it's definitely not Windows as you know it.
It's not a rediculous argument. The problem is these "mod-chips" that they are selling for profit contain code from Microsoft. I repeat: they are selling Microsoft's code for profit. Run a software company, then you'll appreciate why this is illegal.
These numbers are all speculation. Micorsoft has never released these numbers, and based on the quick drop of commodity hardware even if it was true a year a go it's not true now. I've heard that whatever the loss is MS needs to sell an extra controller and 4 games to break even.
If an XBox were a car ... accept that it's not. You can't compare and industry that relies on physical value to an industry that relies on intellectual property (in this case, video games). If you could clone cars as easily as you could copy software, you'd bet that there'd be anti-circumvention laws for copy protected cars.
Dangit, if I buy the hardware and want to modify it, I payed for it--it's mine--why shouldn't I be able to?
Yes. I do agree with you on this one. What I don't agree with is making a business out of selling a device that breaks copy protection.
However, there's a flip side of this coin. If Microsoft (or the MPAA or any other org or company) wants to employ strong copy protection, they better have a system in place to promptly and cost effectively replace my disk if it get's scratched or broken. It's got to go both ways. I'm going to get really pissed off when my $50 XBox game stops working and I have no backup of the disk.
How can soldering some IC chips on a PCB be illegal?
It's not - that's what people are missing. Open up your XBox and do whatever you want with it. Create a business that sells circumvention devices and it's a whole other story.
Accept that when the EFF and others have investigated Paldium etc. they've found that MS is essentially giving the user the right to choose. A non-DRM OS will not be able to play DRM-protected music (no big deal here since I don't plan on buying that crap). However, MS wants to give their users the CHOICE to buy DRM protected music, as well as the choice to rip MP3's or WMA's of their favorite CD. Just because Microsoft is supporting DRM compatible junk, doesn't mean that they are exclusively supporting it. I've been Beta testing WMP9 and not only do you have the option to disable DRM, you don't even have to install it in the first place.
In a past life, I supported over 100 NT servers running file/print, websphere, domino and clustered db2 but now I do server consolidations to Linux mainframes. Believe me, it is most definitely not common knowledge that any MS OS regularly achieves five 9's.
Yes, in your past life there was also NT3.51 which was a joke of a server OS. NT4 was OK but we all scheduled weekly reboots. We're talking Win2K. It's a world of difference. I'll agree that five 9's is virtually impossible if you have a box on the 'Net that requires constant security patches. I'm just saying that for boxes that on on Intranet's that don't require the latest security patch, it's possible to run a very long time without a system failure.
Instead of almost asking questions in an assuming tone maybe you should actually do a bit of research. Everything you've mentioned, and a lot more can be done via the CLI and/or via scripting. Actually, with proper scripting you don't even need to open up a secure telnet or terminal services session. Also, if you must use the GUI, the MMC can manage multiple machines at once.
According to the article, the report was prepared by an independent research company.... Sponsored by IBM!
Did they calculate in the cost of Downtime w/ Microsoft Win.?
It is common knowledge that properly configured Windows boxes achieve at least "five 9's" of uptime. The real issue to focus on is cost due to security issues. Internal servers don't really suffer from this as much, but Web servers, Mail servers, etc. are. Although Linux has had it's fair share of security issues as well, most agree that Windows is still a less secure OS. It would be nice if they could quantify this as part of the study.
The analog in Windows would be... VNC, ???, and batch files?
.NET server is XML based and your scripting job just got a whole lot easier. Plus, you'll be able to script in Perl or C# as opposed to VBScript. I know that'd save me tons of headache!
Try Terminal Services and Windows Scripting Host. I am not a Windows SysAdmin, but I know many. The last company I worked for had one SysAdmin for about 50 Win2K desktops, ~12 Windows servers, 1 Linux box, and two unix-based network storage devices. The servers were all offsite aside from a couple of test machines. Using Terminal Services he could easily bring up the remote machines to configure them. Using WSH, he scripted IIS config's, user management, Exchange configs, etc. To add a new web site to IIS or to create a new user one doesn't even need a GUI. I'll be the first to admit that MS should not have GUI's on it's enterprise servers, but it's also not required. Everything can be done at the CLI and script level. This is where your true efficiency is. Now add the fact that almost every configuration in Windows
See this post that I just made.
Although I agree that devices can be made to aid one to read the text, it's still a visual medium just like how phone is an audio medium yet has utilities to help the deaf use it. However, the web is a much better medium for a deaf person, just like the phone is a much better medium for a blind person.
Consider the fact that the World-Wide Web is not a visual medium. It's a data medium.
What you're describing is the Internet, not the Web.
Web pages are distributed as hypertext over the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). Hypertext is defined as (emphasis added), "A computer-based text retrieval system that enables a user to access particular locations in webpages or other electronic documents by clicking on links within specific webpages or documents."
Web pages are distributed as hypertext over the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). Hypertext is defined as (emphasis added), "A computer-based text retrieval system that enables a user to access particular locations in webpages or other electronic documents by clicking on links within specific webpages or documents."
The nature of the web has always been text based.
Besides the fact that you are wrong about IE (it's still faster then recent Moz builds) you're forgetting that IE is not the only competing browser. Opera is still the fastest and lightest browser by far.
Assuming this person had contacted Southwest's webmasters (which as I said they should have,) what would you do next?
/., and read these long threads! However, consider the fact that the web is a visual medium which is obviously not very condusive to your disability. It would seem logical that, if that medium wasn't suiting you in a particular case, you would then use a medium that better suited your abilities. You can still hear, and the phone is a very easy way to use Southwests services. Not to mention, regardless of disability, it is also the most popular method of using Southwest's services. If I were in charge of Southwest's web site would I make it standards compliant so that accessibility utilities worked properly? Yes I would, but I wouldn't want the government forcing me to do it.
Use the phone. It's great that you can post to
Before people flame the ADA and access to the web for the blind, they should remember that they too could become blind someday.
Great point - always put yourself in someones elses shoes. If I go blind and need to order plane tickets I've decided that I will use this special device called a PHONE. The web is a PRIMARILY VISUAL medium. Why would I, a blind person, expect to experience it in even a fraction of the way a seeing person can? I'll admit that for both the phone and web there are utilities to help the hearing and visually impared respectively. However, when you have a disability you should use the medium that makes the most sense, not expect businesses to invest millions in making a medium something it's not. The web should be accessible and should be w3c compliant so that text-to-speech systems (etc.) work well. However, beyond standards compliance I don't think a business should be forced to make the web something it's not. Southwest airlines has a toll-free phone number. I'm sure a blind person can order tickets very easily just like the majority of other customers who still use that medium.
First off, Microsofts gaming network is closed off.
This is the best possible thing they could have done. Instead of users paying multiple fees to multiple companies, using different software with different functionality and UI's, dealing with different support channels, there is a single, unified system that's easy to use. When Joe is on the system playing one game, Jane can see him and join in. When I'm on my PS2 playing on EA's servers, my friend on Tecmo's servers won't be notified that I'm online.
I agree with you. However, this also doesn't prevent unique creations from being created on the platform either. I wouldn't say that the XBox was designed from the ground up to be a shovelware console platform, rather, I'd say that it's designed from the ground up to be easy to develop for. It just so happens that shovelware finds it's home on the easiest to develop, and most popular console. Xbox has the first of these, now it just needs to become popular.
Pardon me sir but have no clue what engineering is.
Welcome to the real world. This is not acadamia purist BS. Noone said it's just about being the fastest, but it's the fastest, easiest to develop for amonth the 3 consoles (GC coming in a close second), and it's cost of production is theoretically decreasing quickly because of the use of standard parts.
The design of the XBox is in it's first generation, but it's a very good design. Thank you for insulting my intelligence though.
Open up the box again. It may use x86 components but come on. What PC has a unified memory architecure?
You should reevaluate your stance. Many objectively (read: w/o blind MS hate) agree that the XBox is the most powerful system and the most elegant to develop for. It was most definitely not poorly engineered.
The PS2 lost money initially and so did the Gamecube. Granted, the XBox is losing money a littler longer then the other two, but it's still very typical for the industry.
But none of this really matters. The fundamental point is that money for console systems has always been made off the royalties off the games, not the hardware. Sony is just as aggressive against piracy devices as MS is.
I used the term loosely. Essentially, Microsoft, IBM, Apple, and a few other industry heavyweights got together to lobby against government enforced DRM.
How in the world is this flaimbait?
I used the term loosely. Essentially, Microsoft, IBM, Apple, and a few other industry heavyweights got together to lobby against government enforced DRM.