cable modems in my area (central NJ) reportedly have downtimes of at least 15% averaged over a week. this seems ridiculous to me, but they're still selling like mad.
Can someone please explain to me how this SDMI scheme of only allowing 4 copies of a track on your computer and only allowing 3 of them to be copied off to another medium? It seems like there are just too many easy ways of circumventing this plan to make it a feasible way of controlling piracy. What's to stop someone from using non-SDMI compliant programs to manipulate the files after they've been ripped and encoded?
the article certainly seems to imply it does a better job. It says that earlier generations required 'perfect syntax and speaking style' and this one handles colloquial speech, which seems to put the translation far beyond the efforts of babelfish.
on the other hand: 'The ums, urs, interruptions, hesitations and stutterings of spontaneous speech are automatically recognized, filtered and properly prepared for translation.' I would hope that it handles a lot more than my ums and urs....what about all my 'likes'?
of course i agree that what reno et al are pushing for is ridiculous on a variety of levels, but is this really any surprise at all? the fbi, nsa, and friends see that in a very short period of time they are losing a lot of control and they are panicking. i kind of see this stuff as knee jerks. fortunately, i don't think they can really get very far this way...so let them jerk their knees.
Slashdot Mirror
cable modems in my area (central NJ) reportedly have downtimes of at least 15% averaged over a week. this seems ridiculous to me, but they're still selling like mad.
Can someone please explain to me how this SDMI scheme of only allowing 4 copies of a track on your computer and only allowing 3 of them to be copied off to another medium? It seems like there are just too many easy ways of circumventing this plan to make it a feasible way of controlling piracy. What's to stop someone from using non-SDMI compliant programs to manipulate the files after they've been ripped and encoded?
the article certainly seems to imply it does a better job. It says that earlier generations required 'perfect syntax and speaking style' and this one handles colloquial speech, which seems to put the translation far beyond the efforts of babelfish.
on the other hand: 'The ums, urs, interruptions, hesitations and stutterings of spontaneous speech are automatically recognized, filtered and properly prepared for translation.' I would hope that it handles a lot more than my ums and urs....what about all my 'likes'?
of course i agree that what reno et al are pushing for is ridiculous on a variety of levels, but is this really any surprise at all? the fbi, nsa, and friends see that in a very short period of time they are losing a lot of control and they are panicking. i kind of see this stuff as knee jerks. fortunately, i don't think they can really get very far this way...so let them jerk their knees.