According the the Lurker's Guide, he wasn't consciously referencing that, and considered changing it when he realised how similar he'd ended up making it.
A utility that is clearly designed purely to circumvent DRM will be illegal, in most jurisdictions, and something that most legitimate download sites don't want to deal with. Sure, people can always get hold of it, but the harder you make it, the fewer people will bother.
AMD knows full well what Microsoft is planning though. All major hardware developers are kept in the loop.
You know what though, I'm going to say I HOPE there's no directx12 because directx 9 -11 aren't worth upgrading hardware for:
I think this is basically what he was getting at. There may well be an API called DirectX 12, but it will just be a change to the API rather than add any major new features. Any existing hardware will support it with nothing more than a driver upgrade.
The thing is, DirectX didn't simply dictate. The API was the result of discussions between Microsoft and graphics card manufacturers. Primarily it was the hardware driving the API.
Microsoft was smart enough to form a good working relationship with the major vendors, but also had the clout to have the final say on exactly what the API was. But if nVidia or ATI requested a feature, you could be sure it would be in the next version of DirectX, and that version of DirectX would be available before the hardware.
Really, my point is that Google's dominance was because they had a far better product when they were a startup. Not because of their management strategies after they became a multinational. I'm not trying to suggest they didn't earn it. Just that analysts are focussing on the wrong aspect to find out how they did so.
This isn't a criticism of Google. Google is at liberty to experiment with management ideas because they've earned that right (or at least the money to do so). It's a criticism of management types who think they can emulate Google's success by doing what Google does.
When a company is successful - especially a sexy tech company - other companies always seem to try to copy their working practices to try and emulate that success. 20 years ago it was Microsoft. Before that it was IBM. These days it's Google.
Well, I can reveal the one thing you need to be as successful as Google: Have an effective monopoly on internet searches. Or Operating systems. Or computers.
The thing is, Google can be as inefficient as it likes. It has a hefty cash cow bringing in the money. Perhaps Google's idea here works, perhaps it doesn't. The fact that Google does it doesn't make it magic. You need a product to make a lot of money.
Ultimately you need to deal with the underlying problems.There's a reason that the pirates all come from a single country and not other nearby countries. Partly it's the lack of any form of policing to prevent piracy, but also the lack of any policing to make any other business safe or sustainable.
Somalia needs a government, laws and a police force so that they can deal with these people, and deal with the outsiders using Somalian waters as a waste dump, and prevent overfishing.
That's where the DOS menu system was useful. My setup had a menu option that loaded Emm386 in one mode, another in another mode and a third that didn't load it at all. One of those settings was sure to work.
It does matter that a democratic nation that does have a constitutional right to freedom of speech can browbeat people into removing content.
If the US does decide to censor Wikipedia, where will it move to, and how can we be sure they're safe there? The US is not averse to throwing its weight around. Also domains can be seized by the FBI without any form of due process, which would cause problems even if there are workarounds.
It surprises me that this hasn't become a policy before. Patent trolls exist because they know that the company will roll over if it's cheaper to comply than to fight.
Problem is, that only works for a single stage game. What we have is a repeated stage game. The optimal strategy for the troll victim is to fight, and to do as much damage to the troll as possible. This increases the cost of operation for the troll, and makes the victim a lot less lucrative a target for future lawsuits.
Whilst the customer isn't always always right, in this situation, the customer is. The customer doesn't want an always on connection. This applies to a lot of potential customers. Telling the customer they're wrong isn't going to make the customer change his mind. It's going to result in the customer not being a customer any more.
If my reading is correct, this doesn't grant employers any rights they don't already have. That is, at the moment they can legally request your facebook password. The purpose of the amendment is to limit the request to interviews.
Of course, having it as an explicit amendment does suggest that employers are entitled to make a demand, and that refusing the demand is grounds for disciplinary action.
This is probably covered by fair use exceptions though. It's a temporary copy necessary for the use of the legally acquired data that in no way affects the demand for the original item, and is not made for the financial profit of the person doing the copying.
Right. No matter what the moral rights and wrongs of the case, the letter of the law is what matters here. You might be able to make an argument for fair use here but really we need a change in the law, and ideally a complete rethink of what rights the seller and buyer of digital media have.
True. I bet you could also say the same for Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg or most self made multimillionaires. There's a certain personality type that these people share. Part obsessive, part sociopath, part genius.
What do you think is going to happen? You get arrested for fraud. You say "Oh no. I set up my company for tax avoidance purposes and the fact that I drove it into the ground on high risk speculation,leaving others to pick up the tab is just a side effect", and they say "Oh, gosh. That's okay then.", or do you think they might charge you, and rely on a more subjective opinion of a jury as to whether you wilfully defrauded the lender in order to take up a high risk loan?
Slashdot Mirror
According the the Lurker's Guide, he wasn't consciously referencing that, and considered changing it when he realised how similar he'd ended up making it.
DRM isn't used on its own.
A utility that is clearly designed purely to circumvent DRM will be illegal, in most jurisdictions, and something that most legitimate download sites don't want to deal with. Sure, people can always get hold of it, but the harder you make it, the fewer people will bother.
Cool. I was trying to find how much of an effect this had, and you confirmed my suspicion. Do you have a source for this figure?
I think this is basically what he was getting at. There may well be an API called DirectX 12, but it will just be a change to the API rather than add any major new features. Any existing hardware will support it with nothing more than a driver upgrade.
The thing is, DirectX didn't simply dictate. The API was the result of discussions between Microsoft and graphics card manufacturers. Primarily it was the hardware driving the API.
Microsoft was smart enough to form a good working relationship with the major vendors, but also had the clout to have the final say on exactly what the API was. But if nVidia or ATI requested a feature, you could be sure it would be in the next version of DirectX, and that version of DirectX would be available before the hardware.
Really, my point is that Google's dominance was because they had a far better product when they were a startup. Not because of their management strategies after they became a multinational. I'm not trying to suggest they didn't earn it. Just that analysts are focussing on the wrong aspect to find out how they did so.
This isn't a criticism of Google. Google is at liberty to experiment with management ideas because they've earned that right (or at least the money to do so). It's a criticism of management types who think they can emulate Google's success by doing what Google does.
When a company is successful - especially a sexy tech company - other companies always seem to try to copy their working practices to try and emulate that success. 20 years ago it was Microsoft. Before that it was IBM. These days it's Google.
Well, I can reveal the one thing you need to be as successful as Google: Have an effective monopoly on internet searches. Or Operating systems. Or computers.
The thing is, Google can be as inefficient as it likes. It has a hefty cash cow bringing in the money. Perhaps Google's idea here works, perhaps it doesn't. The fact that Google does it doesn't make it magic. You need a product to make a lot of money.
Ultimately you need to deal with the underlying problems.There's a reason that the pirates all come from a single country and not other nearby countries. Partly it's the lack of any form of policing to prevent piracy, but also the lack of any policing to make any other business safe or sustainable.
Somalia needs a government, laws and a police force so that they can deal with these people, and deal with the outsiders using Somalian waters as a waste dump, and prevent overfishing.
That's where the DOS menu system was useful. My setup had a menu option that loaded Emm386 in one mode, another in another mode and a third that didn't load it at all. One of those settings was sure to work.
It does matter that a democratic nation that does have a constitutional right to freedom of speech can browbeat people into removing content.
If the US does decide to censor Wikipedia, where will it move to, and how can we be sure they're safe there? The US is not averse to throwing its weight around. Also domains can be seized by the FBI without any form of due process, which would cause problems even if there are workarounds.
It surprises me that this hasn't become a policy before. Patent trolls exist because they know that the company will roll over if it's cheaper to comply than to fight.
Problem is, that only works for a single stage game. What we have is a repeated stage game. The optimal strategy for the troll victim is to fight, and to do as much damage to the troll as possible. This increases the cost of operation for the troll, and makes the victim a lot less lucrative a target for future lawsuits.
Funnily enough something I said yesterday rearding the MS tweet applies here as well.
Telling your customers they're wrong isn't going to convince them.
Whilst the customer isn't always always right, in this situation, the customer is. The customer doesn't want an always on connection. This applies to a lot of potential customers. Telling the customer they're wrong isn't going to make the customer change his mind. It's going to result in the customer not being a customer any more.
LOL, true. I guess there are a few other parts you need.
If my reading is correct, this doesn't grant employers any rights they don't already have. That is, at the moment they can legally request your facebook password. The purpose of the amendment is to limit the request to interviews.
Of course, having it as an explicit amendment does suggest that employers are entitled to make a demand, and that refusing the demand is grounds for disciplinary action.
Zombie apocalypse is just the writer being cute. This applies to any potential pandemic.
hmm. Forgot about that.
I wonder if that will ever be revisited. It seem frankly bizarre that it's illegal to actually listen to your music without permission.
This is probably covered by fair use exceptions though. It's a temporary copy necessary for the use of the legally acquired data that in no way affects the demand for the original item, and is not made for the financial profit of the person doing the copying.
Right. No matter what the moral rights and wrongs of the case, the letter of the law is what matters here. You might be able to make an argument for fair use here but really we need a change in the law, and ideally a complete rethink of what rights the seller and buyer of digital media have.
Trying way too hard on April Fools day has become something of a Slashdot tradition now. I think I'd actually miss it if they stopped doing it.
For all you know he may find anal warts hilarious and is enjoying April Fools Slashdot.
True. I bet you could also say the same for Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg or most self made multimillionaires. There's a certain personality type that these people share. Part obsessive, part sociopath, part genius.
The UN involvement was described as a police action. The war itself was always a war, but Truman declared the UN's involvement as a "police action".
What do you think is going to happen? You get arrested for fraud. You say "Oh no. I set up my company for tax avoidance purposes and the fact that I drove it into the ground on high risk speculation,leaving others to pick up the tab is just a side effect", and they say "Oh, gosh. That's okay then.", or do you think they might charge you, and rely on a more subjective opinion of a jury as to whether you wilfully defrauded the lender in order to take up a high risk loan?