With computers, when you are accessing the data, you are making a copy of it. If nothing else, you are copying it to the framebuffer of your videocard for display.
Any 'effective' DRM that tries to prevent you from copying the data will affect your legal, fair-use rights to access the data.
Until all your own hardware talks to each other and phones home to the DRM makers, there is aboslutely no practical way to DRM something to work only on 'your' hardware. The hardware doesn't know who owns it, and if you are asking for access on multiple hardware platforms, you are asking for copies. One copy = unlimited copies. No matter how you obfuscate, limit or mangle things, it boils down to a simple fact; If you have bunch of data on your hard drive or RAM, in order to do *anything* to that data, you are making a copy of it, and any piece of code designed to prevent that is going to prevent legimate uses (or alternatively the DRM is so weak its irrelevant and you can make unlimited copies)
The whole idea of DRM is so braindead - until they have DRM code running in your brain, it's always circumventable, and to make it hard to circumvent, it will inevitably get into way of legimate uses, as numerous legimate uses *require* making of copies of the data.
There is no 'acceptable' 'good' way to implement DRM
DRM takes your rights away. Rights to copy, modify and even just access data (with computers, reading data = copying data anyway).
No matter how you implement it, it will restrict you, at which point it's called 'braindead'. The only non-braindead way to do DRM is not to use it at all.
How can you have DRM that doesn't get into your way?
DRM, by design, takes away your ability to access/modify/distribute data.
Data is, by definition, there to be accessed/modified/distributed.
There can only be slightly less braindead DRM, and braindead DRM. DRM will ALWAYS get into your way sooner or later (it's designed to do that) - even when you limit your usage to what fair use allows you to do.
It's great in theory, but in practice it tends to be way safer and simpler just to have standardized computers and drop disk images.
I do agree that the 'MS way' is good for a shop that has huge number of mixed systems with little commonality in hardware. It's somewhat painful to set up and requires lots of praying and monitoring to ensure that everything works, but once it DOES work, it can make additional desktops easy to set up.
At least until the new desktop model borks on install because there is once again something wrong with the installation (missing driver, maybe?)...
Actually MCSE is no walk in the park. You have to know pretty arcane stuff about Windows and (broken) MS applications. Now some of it is totally no-brainer stuff, but on the other hand the exams ask for a lot of 'MS approved super l33t way of doing this and that', and unless you have read the MS propaganda and the 'official' solutions, you don't know about them. Naturally the 'common sense' solution is not a valid answer - even if in the real world you actually do it like common sense dictates.
Example: In some Windows server exams, you are asked about rolling out installations to large organizations with gazillion additional programs and custom bits. In the Real World this is commonly done by imaging the disk and just dropping disk images to the desktops. The Microsoft Way(tm) is obiviously to use an installation server, unattended installation scripts and other arcane junk, and then pray that the installation works like it should:)
Same goes for lots of firewall/networking related things where everyone in the real world uses non-MS solutions. But in the MS world of the MS exams, you are supposed to use ICS and other 'great' solutions - and actually know how they work:)
Now having said that, the MCP that this article refers to is a big joke. You can get MCP certified on just about anything, and the easiest ones are to the tune of "here's how you start up a windows PC and use mouse". Over here we call 'MCP' a 'Minesweeper certified professional'. Lots of MCPs are certified in something like Word and Excel, and the exams for using those are completely braindead easy.
No. US views, like freedom of speech - as long as you follow the party line of the current US overlords. Otherwise you are a terrorist or something like that...
The submission is old news. Anyone who read the earlier AMD antitrust documentation knew about this claim. It's among the things Intel has done to drive AMD to dirt.
However, what's news, is that EU antitrust investigators raided Intel and some OEMs today...
Really, the whole planet could use one- or two-child policies. Human population growth is a big problem, and things will get nasty sooner or later...
It doesn't exactly help when two major religions are trying to out-reproduce each other on ideological grounds (catholics and muslims).
Chinese policy, while somewhat harsh (it probably should be 'two-child policy', at least once the growth has been stopped), is the only sane attempt at restraining the population growth of the human race. Of course the 10+ child families in africa, india etc. mean that even if china keeps it's population in check, it won't change the final outcome - it might delay it by a few decades, but sooner or later the planet will simply run out of resources to support the exponentially growing population - and when we run out of the capacity to produce food for everyone, people will fight over it. I actually hope that the mess would happen after my time, since it will be a HUGE mess. However, considering that I'm 30, the odds are not too good...
No matter how evil it might sound, AIDS is probably a GOOD thing for the planet, since it's going to give a bit more time due to the effect it's having on the population growth in Africa. One can't help but wonder if it really IS a 'tinfoil hat'-grade lab-engineered secret plot to try and restrict population growth in 'unimportant' / 'undeveloped' countries...
And anyone hopping in and calling me inhuman - Single cases are tragedies, but unfortunately at planetwide scale it's all math. In the last 50 years, the population of the world has roughly tripled - from 2 billion to 6 billion. In another 50 years, that would mean up to 18 billion, and sadly I don't think this planet can take it...
You really think that HDTV sets cost megabucks simply because they had a high definition display element?
All that DRM crap COSTS MONEY. Based on the price of that box, I'd say each crippled HDTV display that uses DRM adds easily 50 euros or more to the wholesale price of the product due to the DRM crap.
You and me, paying so that our ability to view content is restricted...
And that 399e is 399e because those widgets are probably illegal circumvention devices in some parts of the world, and the components inside probably come with a big price premium, as their (masked) manufacturer is taking a risk with them.
And it happens all the time. It's more common on 'less high profile' products.
I've sometimes done some hunting of PS2, DVD and PC titles few days prior to release date. If you have bit of persistence and know which stores employ brainless drones for receiving and shelving goods, you can get a lot of this stuff a few days early. In some cases if you just ask nicely from a drone, he'll go to the back of the store and crack open a box and sell you one from there - without a clue that it's 'not supposed to be sold until date X'. Best way is to ask about it in a way that implies it was released yesterday or last week or something like that. ('Do you have X.. you know.. the thingy they released last week?'). On PC games people tend to make noise if someone somewhere 'broke the date' early, and then almost any specialist store will sell it to you, if you just point the manager towards information that says that his competitors are already selling it. Especially since most PC game release dates are not really enforced that well (no huge penalties or anything).
Now 99% of the time it's not worth the trouble, but it was fun to play original Gran Turismo 4 two days prior to it's official release date.
Granted, the more high profile the release, the lower the odds. Finding 'random boxed set of an obscure TV-show' 2-3 days early is no problem. Finding DVD of the biggest blockbuster in the recent memory is almost impossible, since in those cases the stores usually get special reminders about not breaking the 'street date'.
Of course things get really easy if you know someone who works at the store...
I'm quite sure by the time they have cleaned up the mess underground, there will be more dead... the numbers always start low, because the emergency services are kinda too busy trying to help the living ones - body counts can wait until everyone still alive is cared for.
If a bomb of any real size blows up in an enclosed subway car during a rush hour... I can't see how there could be no deaths next to it. And if the count of 6 blasts in subways is true, that means the body count is definitely going to rise a lot. '2 dead' would mean that four of those blasts didn't kill anyone. With hundreds of wounded already in hospitals... And we know that one bomb was strong enough to blow off the whole roof of a london bus, so it was no firecracker...
---------------- Film historian Jason Joiner met Gary Kurtz in 1993, and in 1996 they created the Kurtz/Joiner Archive to preserve Star Wars history for future generations. As part of their on-going work, Mr. Joiner has interviewed over 200 members of the original cast and crew over the past ten years who worked on the trilogy or were closely associated with the production. Since its inception, the Kurtz/Joiner Archive has collected and currently maintains hundreds of thousands of original production artifacts and memorabilia from Star Wars and other Gary Kurtz films.
To help fund future acquisitions and for the restoration/preservation of various pieces in the archive, certain items have been selected for de-accession. The following artifacts have been culled from the Kurtz/Joiner Archive for that very purpose, and their sale will ensure that many more pieces in the archive are preserved for future generations. ----------------
It seems to me they have especially picked items that they have multiples of. At least the snowspeeder SFX model and the lightsabre are hardly oneoffs - I'm quite sure they had multiple copies of these, and are auctioning one each to get funding for the effort to preserve the rest.
Yup. It seems to me there is no real reason why it couldn't land automatically. All the hard bits are already automated.
It's just that right now it's not wired to do so, as few critical bits require human intervention. And yes, it apparently could already do the whole 'flying bit' of the landing automatically, with an astronaut just enjoying the ride - as long as he activates those few critical bits at the right moments. No need to use the stick to actually fly it. So yes, current shuttle can land automatically, as long as someone is in the controls to perform those few button-pushing tasks.
But if there is nobody home, it'll do, at best, a belly-landing:)
Ignited by a failing SOLID ROCKET booster that burned a hole into the liquid fuel tank.
SOLID ROCKET booster that cannot be turned off in case of a problem. SOLID ROCKET booster that, due to being reusable, was made out of sections - and one joint failed...
Well, what I've read is that they took a shortcut by copying the aerodynamical shape of the Shuttle, but did some tweaks to it later, and the whole innards are completely different.
It's a testament to the well-designed shape of the Shuttle (considering it's mission parameters) - why bother spending years and $MegaRubles to test out a new shape, when you can nab a pre-tested aerodynamical shape and work your way from there?
-quote- Shuttles already have a system that can automatically perform most landing functions. However, some key tasks -- such as lowering the landing gear and deploying a pair of probes that collect airspeed, altitude and temperature data during the last moments of flight -- require an astronaut at the controls.The potential changes would allow the flight team on the ground to land an unmanned shuttle completely by remote command."All of those things in a theoretical sense can be automated, but they are not currently connected to the computer system," said Wayne Hale, NASA's deputy director of the shuttle program."When we designed the shuttle years ago, they weren't [connected] for a variety of reasons," he added. "The modifications to allow that capability to be automated are going to take some time. -quote-
Current shuttles cannot land automatically. NASA is however looking into it, among other things. And no, there are no real technological barriers - it's just that the current shuttles cannot do it because the neccessary signals to do few neccessary tasks are only wired to buttons that have to be pushed by a guy in the shuttle.
But the point is - after the collapse of USSR, they didn't have the funds to keep the whole space program going, something had to be cut. Buran was the big portion that was dumped.
As far as the only flight of Buran - it was unmanned. Check wikipedia for further details.
Shuttle has the limitation, because I belive it cannot deploy landing gears without someone actually pushing the button.
I'm not saying Shuttle couldn't be easily modded to perform an unmanned mission, but as it stands now, it cannot do it. Someone has to be there, if for nothing else, to deploy the landing gear.
Hmm. I thought it was because the landing gears cannot be deployed automatically. You have to manually lower them (Marketed as a 'security' feature, since once deployed, they are deployed, and you can't deorbit with the gears down without a fiery end - but yes, I agree that it's mostly due to astronauts making sure they are needed for something...)
Hmm. True. They were in an atmospheric test model used for testing... easier to do glide tests when you can just turn off engines, glide, turn them back on and climb up:)
(compared to drops from a 747 like Shuttle did with Enterprise)
It *was* great back then. Nowdays they would have to start from scratch again since the production lines are no longer there. Besides, advancement in many technologies mean that 10+ years old prototype is nothing but a curiosity today.
They might gain something from hiring smart russians, but I think they already do that to some extent...
Slashdot Mirror
You don't seem to get it.
With computers, when you are accessing the data, you are making a copy of it. If nothing else, you are copying it to the framebuffer of your videocard for display.
Any 'effective' DRM that tries to prevent you from copying the data will affect your legal, fair-use rights to access the data.
Until all your own hardware talks to each other and phones home to the DRM makers, there is aboslutely no practical way to DRM something to work only on 'your' hardware. The hardware doesn't know who owns it, and if you are asking for access on multiple hardware platforms, you are asking for copies. One copy = unlimited copies. No matter how you obfuscate, limit or mangle things, it boils down to a simple fact; If you have bunch of data on your hard drive or RAM, in order to do *anything* to that data, you are making a copy of it, and any piece of code designed to prevent that is going to prevent legimate uses (or alternatively the DRM is so weak its irrelevant and you can make unlimited copies)
The whole idea of DRM is so braindead - until they have DRM code running in your brain, it's always circumventable, and to make it hard to circumvent, it will inevitably get into way of legimate uses, as numerous legimate uses *require* making of copies of the data.
You don't get it, so I clue you in:
There is no 'acceptable' 'good' way to implement DRM
DRM takes your rights away. Rights to copy, modify and even just access data (with computers, reading data = copying data anyway).
No matter how you implement it, it will restrict you, at which point it's called 'braindead'. The only non-braindead way to do DRM is not to use it at all.
How can you have DRM that doesn't get into your way?
DRM, by design, takes away your ability to access/modify/distribute data.
Data is, by definition, there to be accessed/modified/distributed.
There can only be slightly less braindead DRM, and braindead DRM. DRM will ALWAYS get into your way sooner or later (it's designed to do that) - even when you limit your usage to what fair use allows you to do.
No, you don't understand. MS drones have their own super l33t ways to cook their admin-fu magic.
:)
Super l33t to them. Not to us.
To get MS certification, you have to unlearn your misguided linux ways and learn the fine art of Microsoft Windows Admin/Development-Fu.
Welcome to the dark side, young apprentice
It's great in theory, but in practice it tends to be way safer and simpler just to have standardized computers and drop disk images.
:)
I do agree that the 'MS way' is good for a shop that has huge number of mixed systems with little commonality in hardware. It's somewhat painful to set up and requires lots of praying and monitoring to ensure that everything works, but once it DOES work, it can make additional desktops easy to set up.
At least until the new desktop model borks on install because there is once again something wrong with the installation (missing driver, maybe?)...
Summary? Mixed hardware environments = evil
Whoops. make that 'the summary referred to'... reading articles... you expect someone to do that in Slashdot? :)
Much more kudos to her then. I know I probably suck too much at coding (not my line of work) to pass the same exams without considerable study.
Actually MCP = just about any MS exam.
Even something as simple as using Office.
Actually MCSE is no walk in the park. You have to know pretty arcane stuff about Windows and (broken) MS applications. Now some of it is totally no-brainer stuff, but on the other hand the exams ask for a lot of 'MS approved super l33t way of doing this and that', and unless you have read the MS propaganda and the 'official' solutions, you don't know about them. Naturally the 'common sense' solution is not a valid answer - even if in the real world you actually do it like common sense dictates.
:)
:)
Example: In some Windows server exams, you are asked about rolling out installations to large organizations with gazillion additional programs and custom bits. In the Real World this is commonly done by imaging the disk and just dropping disk images to the desktops. The Microsoft Way(tm) is obiviously to use an installation server, unattended installation scripts and other arcane junk, and then pray that the installation works like it should
Same goes for lots of firewall/networking related things where everyone in the real world uses non-MS solutions. But in the MS world of the MS exams, you are supposed to use ICS and other 'great' solutions - and actually know how they work
Now having said that, the MCP that this article refers to is a big joke. You can get MCP certified on just about anything, and the easiest ones are to the tune of "here's how you start up a windows PC and use mouse". Over here we call 'MCP' a 'Minesweeper certified professional'. Lots of MCPs are certified in something like Word and Excel, and the exams for using those are completely braindead easy.
No. US views, like freedom of speech - as long as you follow the party line of the current US overlords. Otherwise you are a terrorist or something like that...
The submission is old news. Anyone who read the earlier AMD antitrust documentation knew about this claim. It's among the things Intel has done to drive AMD to dirt.
However, what's news, is that EU antitrust investigators raided Intel and some OEMs today...
http://theinquirer.net/?article=24554
They probably were hunting for some documents related to alleged antitrust violations - nice free additional ammo for AMD and their case, methinks...
Really, the whole planet could use one- or two-child policies. Human population growth is a big problem, and things will get nasty sooner or later...
It doesn't exactly help when two major religions are trying to out-reproduce each other on ideological grounds (catholics and muslims).
Chinese policy, while somewhat harsh (it probably should be 'two-child policy', at least once the growth has been stopped), is the only sane attempt at restraining the population growth of the human race. Of course the 10+ child families in africa, india etc. mean that even if china keeps it's population in check, it won't change the final outcome - it might delay it by a few decades, but sooner or later the planet will simply run out of resources to support the exponentially growing population - and when we run out of the capacity to produce food for everyone, people will fight over it. I actually hope that the mess would happen after my time, since it will be a HUGE mess. However, considering that I'm 30, the odds are not too good...
No matter how evil it might sound, AIDS is probably a GOOD thing for the planet, since it's going to give a bit more time due to the effect it's having on the population growth in Africa. One can't help but wonder if it really IS a 'tinfoil hat'-grade lab-engineered secret plot to try and restrict population growth in 'unimportant' / 'undeveloped' countries...
And anyone hopping in and calling me inhuman - Single cases are tragedies, but unfortunately at planetwide scale it's all math. In the last 50 years, the population of the world has roughly tripled - from 2 billion to 6 billion. In another 50 years, that would mean up to 18 billion, and sadly I don't think this planet can take it...
You really think that HDTV sets cost megabucks simply because they had a high definition display element?
All that DRM crap COSTS MONEY. Based on the price of that box, I'd say each crippled HDTV display that uses DRM adds easily 50 euros or more to the wholesale price of the product due to the DRM crap.
You and me, paying so that our ability to view content is restricted...
And that 399e is 399e because those widgets are probably illegal circumvention devices in some parts of the world, and the components inside probably come with a big price premium, as their (masked) manufacturer is taking a risk with them.
And it happens all the time. It's more common on 'less high profile' products.
I've sometimes done some hunting of PS2, DVD and PC titles few days prior to release date. If you have bit of persistence and know which stores employ brainless drones for receiving and shelving goods, you can get a lot of this stuff a few days early. In some cases if you just ask nicely from a drone, he'll go to the back of the store and crack open a box and sell you one from there - without a clue that it's 'not supposed to be sold until date X'. Best way is to ask about it in a way that implies it was released yesterday or last week or something like that. ('Do you have X.. you know.. the thingy they released last week?'). On PC games people tend to make noise if someone somewhere 'broke the date' early, and then almost any specialist store will sell it to you, if you just point the manager towards information that says that his competitors are already selling it. Especially since most PC game release dates are not really enforced that well (no huge penalties or anything).
Now 99% of the time it's not worth the trouble, but it was fun to play original Gran Turismo 4 two days prior to it's official release date.
Granted, the more high profile the release, the lower the odds. Finding 'random boxed set of an obscure TV-show' 2-3 days early is no problem. Finding DVD of the biggest blockbuster in the recent memory is almost impossible, since in those cases the stores usually get special reminders about not breaking the 'street date'.
Of course things get really easy if you know someone who works at the store...
Idiotic people whining about a non-issue?
Well, current reported body count is 40 or 45, depending on who you listen to.
And I'm quite sure it'll grow more.
Surprised?
I'm quite sure by the time they have cleaned up the mess underground, there will be more dead... the numbers always start low, because the emergency services are kinda too busy trying to help the living ones - body counts can wait until everyone still alive is cared for.
If a bomb of any real size blows up in an enclosed subway car during a rush hour... I can't see how there could be no deaths next to it. And if the count of 6 blasts in subways is true, that means the body count is definitely going to rise a lot. '2 dead' would mean that four of those blasts didn't kill anyone. With hundreds of wounded already in hospitals... And we know that one bomb was strong enough to blow off the whole roof of a london bus, so it was no firecracker...
RTFA
----------------
Film historian Jason Joiner met Gary Kurtz in 1993, and in 1996 they created the Kurtz/Joiner Archive to preserve Star Wars history for future generations. As part of their on-going work, Mr. Joiner has interviewed over 200 members of the original cast and crew over the past ten years who worked on the trilogy or were closely associated with the production. Since its inception, the Kurtz/Joiner Archive has collected and currently maintains hundreds of thousands of original production artifacts and memorabilia from Star Wars and other Gary Kurtz films.
To help fund future acquisitions and for the restoration/preservation of various pieces in the archive, certain items have been selected for de-accession. The following artifacts have been culled from the Kurtz/Joiner Archive for that very purpose, and their sale will ensure that many more pieces in the archive are preserved for future generations.
----------------
It seems to me they have especially picked items that they have multiples of. At least the snowspeeder SFX model and the lightsabre are hardly oneoffs - I'm quite sure they had multiple copies of these, and are auctioning one each to get funding for the effort to preserve the rest.
Yup. It seems to me there is no real reason why it couldn't land automatically. All the hard bits are already automated.
:)
It's just that right now it's not wired to do so, as few critical bits require human intervention. And yes, it apparently could already do the whole 'flying bit' of the landing automatically, with an astronaut just enjoying the ride - as long as he activates those few critical bits at the right moments. No need to use the stick to actually fly it. So yes, current shuttle can land automatically, as long as someone is in the controls to perform those few button-pushing tasks.
But if there is nobody home, it'll do, at best, a belly-landing
Ignited by a failing SOLID ROCKET booster that burned a hole into the liquid fuel tank.
SOLID ROCKET booster that cannot be turned off in case of a problem. SOLID ROCKET booster that, due to being reusable, was made out of sections - and one joint failed...
Well, what I've read is that they took a shortcut by copying the aerodynamical shape of the Shuttle, but did some tweaks to it later, and the whole innards are completely different.
:)
It's a testament to the well-designed shape of the Shuttle (considering it's mission parameters) - why bother spending years and $MegaRubles to test out a new shape, when you can nab a pre-tested aerodynamical shape and work your way from there?
Open source aerospace engineering...?
http://www.spaceflightnews.com/forum/lofiversion/i ndex.php/t837.html
-quote-
Shuttles already have a system that can automatically perform most landing functions. However, some key tasks -- such as lowering the landing gear and deploying a pair of probes that collect airspeed, altitude and temperature data during the last moments of flight -- require an astronaut at the controls.The potential changes would allow the flight team on the ground to land an unmanned shuttle completely by remote command."All of those things in a theoretical sense can be automated, but they are not currently connected to the computer system," said Wayne Hale, NASA's deputy director of the shuttle program."When we designed the shuttle years ago, they weren't [connected] for a variety of reasons," he added. "The modifications to allow that capability to be automated are going to take some time.
-quote-
Current shuttles cannot land automatically. NASA is however looking into it, among other things. And no, there are no real technological barriers - it's just that the current shuttles cannot do it because the neccessary signals to do few neccessary tasks are only wired to buttons that have to be pushed by a guy in the shuttle.
Okay, Russia made the call, not USSR.
But the point is - after the collapse of USSR, they didn't have the funds to keep the whole space program going, something had to be cut. Buran was the big portion that was dumped.
As far as the only flight of Buran - it was unmanned. Check wikipedia for further details.
Shuttle has the limitation, because I belive it cannot deploy landing gears without someone actually pushing the button.
I'm not saying Shuttle couldn't be easily modded to perform an unmanned mission, but as it stands now, it cannot do it. Someone has to be there, if for nothing else, to deploy the landing gear.
Hmm. I thought it was because the landing gears cannot be deployed automatically. You have to manually lower them (Marketed as a 'security' feature, since once deployed, they are deployed, and you can't deorbit with the gears down without a fiery end - but yes, I agree that it's mostly due to astronauts making sure they are needed for something...)
Hmm. True. They were in an atmospheric test model used for testing... easier to do glide tests when you can just turn off engines, glide, turn them back on and climb up :)
(compared to drops from a 747 like Shuttle did with Enterprise)
It's also over ten years out of date already.
It *was* great back then. Nowdays they would have to start from scratch again since the production lines are no longer there. Besides, advancement in many technologies mean that 10+ years old prototype is nothing but a curiosity today.
They might gain something from hiring smart russians, but I think they already do that to some extent...