Nothing will stop this, so why are they bothering with all this encryption technology?
That's easy: Money. The SDMI thinks (probably correctly) that piracy costs them a great deal of money eash year. They also think that if they could prevent that piracy, their revenues would increase significantly (very debatable). They also have five other companies telling them that they could stop a lot of that piracy by using their encryption technology.
As dumb as it sounds, the marketing and sales people of those five companies are probably more convincing to the SDMI than a bunch of geeks screaming on a message board.
Here's probably what happened. Mainsoft had a programmer that made something similar to libwine. The higher up's saw it and decided that they would ask Microsoft if they would be interested in such a thing. Someone at Microsoft said sure, here's some seed money for R&D and we'll give you more when it's done if we're interested.
Most likely this will never see the light of day. Especially given Microsoft's.NET platform. I think they would much rather port all of their apps to the.NET platform and have a.NET port for Linux (and Solaris). It may be a few years out, but then again, so would any Office port.
I think it depends on the project.
on
Too Old To Code?
·
· Score: 2
I think you can be productive for more than 8 hours a day, but you really have to enjoy the project that you're working on, and you have to have a good working environment. In my experience (albeit less than yours), the dumb mistakes have come in when I no longer care enough to really concentrate on what I'm doing. However, I've been able to get up to 14 hours of productive time on some projects. After that point, the physical fatigue sets in and I care more about sleeping than making sure what I'm doing is "smart".
I always hate arguments that start: "If you look at the case studies". If you look at the case studies, every family also has 2 1/2 children... but we know that this is not true for everybody. Individuals are different, and we shouldn't use case studies to portray everyone as "average".
BTW - I think the reason it took you three days to find that bug is because you had to wade through a year's worth of worthless timestamp comments in your source... I'm guessing that decision was made after-hours as well. (g)
No, that wasn't part of the agreement. The difference was that in most states it was explicitly stated that you could not return the "product" without penalty. In this case that was not explicitly stated.
In other words, it didn't say that you had the option to return the product, it neglected to say that you could not.
Okay. Now I don't see the difference between my analogy and yours, except for the fact that you're being manipulated by a lawyer... So I'm guessing you agree, but are still trying to justify it...
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. (I tend to think the converse is true as well)
Don't get me wrong here, I agree that Microsoft (and Compuserve, and anyone else with this sort of "deal") is being deceptive and trying to take advantage of people; and I'm glad they had to pull the deal from two states at least. However, two wrongs don't make a right (that was what I was trying to point out).
If someone was passing out $100 bills on the street, would it be taking advantage of them to accept the money? I don't see any difference.
You don't, or don't want to? There's a big difference here. A better analogy would be if someone were passing out $100 bills if you agree to buy some $200 item. If you say "Sure, I'll go buy that", and then pocket the money, you are taking advantage of them, and that's wrong.
I question the debatable morality involved in advertising a computer for $399 when it actually costs $799.
I don't agree with this kind of marketing tactic either. I think it attempts to prey on people's inability to look at the total cost. I think it'd be more ethical to offer the PC + 3 years of MSN access for $1189.20 ($799 + $790.20 - $400) with options to pay the ISP portion in monthly installments, etc... Functionally the same thing, but the ad for the $399 PC looks better, and therefore works better.
NOT in NJ -- Rural rage:
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
I think that many children today lack the sophistication to screen out the 'real' and 'unreal' from media and from computer games.
I don't think this "lack of sophistication" is only limited to today's children. I know just as many "adults" (probably more) that fit that statement as well.
Kinda sounds like a "choose your fate" type discussion.
Who would you rather be?
Bill Gates - Hated by many who consider themselves intelligent. CEO of a company that spouts "innovation" but is mosly known for it's lack there-of. Many people use his products. Many people hate them. Dropped out of college to found said company. Worth so much financially that [your God here] regularly calls him for loans.
Linus Torvolds - Loved by all who consider themselves intelligent. Pioneered a UNIX-like operating system from the ground up, possibly preventing the eventual death of all things UNIX-like (and possibly starting the eventual death of all thing Microsoft-like). Not worth billions, but (probably) still very comfortable financially.
Ugh!!! Don't mean to be preachy, but I think you're taking the wrong attitude about learning assembly programming for the 68k, and missing the point entirely. When I was in college, I too had to learn 68k assembly, and I consider it one of the most valuable classes I had to take. (Full Disclosure: I got a C in this class, because I didn't "get it" until we were about half-way done witht he class.)
The point of the class is not to teach you how to program in 68k assembly, or even assembly for any processor, as there is a good chance you will never program in raw assembly.
The point of the class is to teach you how computer systems work. You should learn critical lessons like how declaring a 10,000 byte array statically differs from allocating it dynamically, and why using a recursive algorithm might be a bad choice for a performance sensitive app.
The reason 68k assembly is chosen for this type of class is because it is less complex than x86 and PPC assembly (these are the only other one's I've seen), but similar enough that you won't be lost if you have to look at either of these. Since it's simpler, you also should spend less time learning the language itself and spending more time learning how higher level languages (like C) translate into assembly.
Trust me, this stuff is more valuable than you realize.
I like guatamnlad's design the best also, although #2 is also pretty nice. Having the faint shadow of the Gnu in the background clinched it for me though.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing will stop this, so why are they bothering with all this encryption technology?
That's easy: Money. The SDMI thinks (probably correctly) that piracy costs them a great deal of money eash year. They also think that if they could prevent that piracy, their revenues would increase significantly (very debatable). They also have five other companies telling them that they could stop a lot of that piracy by using their encryption technology.
As dumb as it sounds, the marketing and sales people of those five companies are probably more convincing to the SDMI than a bunch of geeks screaming on a message board.
Every interview I have seen involving someone who has actually _met_ Bush says that he is very smart man.
I believe people said the same thing of Dan Quayle.
And I'm sorry, but "Duuuuude, George Dubya is sooooo smart man." does not qualify as ringing endorsement.
I know what you mean.
I can't count the number of fingers I've lost because of my dislike for dry toast.
Maybe if I use my toes...
It's a Canadian word for stealing. (Rent "Strange Brew" some time).
Here's probably what happened. Mainsoft had a programmer that made something similar to libwine. The higher up's saw it and decided that they would ask Microsoft if they would be interested in such a thing. Someone at Microsoft said sure, here's some seed money for R&D and we'll give you more when it's done if we're interested.
Most likely this will never see the light of day. Especially given Microsoft's .NET platform. I think they would much rather port all of their apps to the .NET platform and have a .NET port for Linux (and Solaris). It may be a few years out, but then again, so would any Office port.
I think you can be productive for more than 8 hours a day, but you really have to enjoy the project that you're working on, and you have to have a good working environment. In my experience (albeit less than yours), the dumb mistakes have come in when I no longer care enough to really concentrate on what I'm doing. However, I've been able to get up to 14 hours of productive time on some projects. After that point, the physical fatigue sets in and I care more about sleeping than making sure what I'm doing is "smart".
I always hate arguments that start: "If you look at the case studies". If you look at the case studies, every family also has 2 1/2 children... but we know that this is not true for everybody. Individuals are different, and we shouldn't use case studies to portray everyone as "average".
BTW - I think the reason it took you three days to find that bug is because you had to wade through a year's worth of worthless timestamp comments in your source... I'm guessing that decision was made after-hours as well. (g)
For the most part. Them and anyone using servers that are not participating in the UDP...
No, that wasn't part of the agreement. The difference was that in most states it was explicitly stated that you could not return the "product" without penalty. In this case that was not explicitly stated.
In other words, it didn't say that you had the option to return the product, it neglected to say that you could not.
Okay. Now I don't see the difference between my analogy and yours, except for the fact that you're being manipulated by a lawyer... So I'm guessing you agree, but are still trying to justify it...
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. (I tend to think the converse is true as well)
Don't get me wrong here, I agree that Microsoft (and Compuserve, and anyone else with this sort of "deal") is being deceptive and trying to take advantage of people; and I'm glad they had to pull the deal from two states at least. However, two wrongs don't make a right (that was what I was trying to point out).
If someone was passing out $100 bills on the street, would it be taking advantage of them to accept the money? I don't see any difference.
You don't, or don't want to? There's a big difference here. A better analogy would be if someone were passing out $100 bills if you agree to buy some $200 item. If you say "Sure, I'll go buy that", and then pocket the money, you are taking advantage of them, and that's wrong.
I question the debatable morality involved in advertising a computer for $399 when it actually costs $799.
I don't agree with this kind of marketing tactic either. I think it attempts to prey on people's inability to look at the total cost. I think it'd be more ethical to offer the PC + 3 years of MSN access for $1189.20 ($799 + $790.20 - $400) with options to pay the ISP portion in monthly installments, etc... Functionally the same thing, but the ad for the $399 PC looks better, and therefore works better.
I think that many children today lack the sophistication to screen out the 'real' and 'unreal' from media and from computer games.
I don't think this "lack of sophistication" is only limited to today's children. I know just as many "adults" (probably more) that fit that statement as well.
Kinda sounds like a "choose your fate" type discussion.
Who would you rather be?
Bill Gates - Hated by many who consider themselves intelligent. CEO of a company that spouts "innovation" but is mosly known for it's lack there-of. Many people use his products. Many people hate them. Dropped out of college to found said company. Worth so much financially that [your God here] regularly calls him for loans.
Linus Torvolds - Loved by all who consider themselves intelligent. Pioneered a UNIX-like operating system from the ground up, possibly preventing the eventual death of all things UNIX-like (and possibly starting the eventual death of all thing Microsoft-like). Not worth billions, but (probably) still very comfortable financially.
You decide.
Ugh!!! Don't mean to be preachy, but I think you're taking the wrong attitude about learning assembly programming for the 68k, and missing the point entirely. When I was in college, I too had to learn 68k assembly, and I consider it one of the most valuable classes I had to take. (Full Disclosure: I got a C in this class, because I didn't "get it" until we were about half-way done witht he class.)
The point of the class is not to teach you how to program in 68k assembly, or even assembly for any processor, as there is a good chance you will never program in raw assembly.
The point of the class is to teach you how computer systems work. You should learn critical lessons like how declaring a 10,000 byte array statically differs from allocating it dynamically, and why using a recursive algorithm might be a bad choice for a performance sensitive app.
The reason 68k assembly is chosen for this type of class is because it is less complex than x86 and PPC assembly (these are the only other one's I've seen), but similar enough that you won't be lost if you have to look at either of these. Since it's simpler, you also should spend less time learning the language itself and spending more time learning how higher level languages (like C) translate into assembly.
Trust me, this stuff is more valuable than you realize.
I like guatamnlad's design the best also, although #2 is also pretty nice. Having the faint shadow of the Gnu in the background clinched it for me though.
I wish it were an open vote...