Uhm... SONY is Blu-Ray. The competitors' are HD-DVD.
Now re-read that...
In cases of monopoly this might make sense, but Sony is trying to lauch a new format here. Keeping the prices inflated (for any reason) is going to drive consumers towards HD-DVD.
I'll paraphrase... "Sony is going to drive consumers to the competitors."
Therefore, there is no perfectly valid argument being made (the wrong assumption being that SONY kept the price high to get people to buy Blu-Ray "because it's more expensive, it must be better")... but if there were, then yes, driving the consumers to the competitor would be a pretty well-placed shot in their own foot.. but if that's what they set out to do, I guess they still win in a suicidal sort of way?
Hate replying to myself, but here's a nice example of this happening only 3 days after my post (not implying relation):
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/15/172 236 Microsoft Retracts Private Folder Option "Just recently, an update to Windows added the option to password-encrypt a personal folder. The intent was to allow users who share PCs to have a measure of privacy, but C|Net reports the company is now removing that functionality with a patch. IT managers hit the roof when the option was added, complaining of the possibility of lost passwords and inaccessible data."
Your post, that is... in a nutshell - if you say sorry, you admit wrondoing, and you open yourself up to litigation.
This blog has a bit of a story about that possibly no longer being the case in british columbia, as well as an organisation whose goal is to do away with the nonsense of sorry == admitting guilt altogether: http://www.boosman.com/blog/2006/04/apology_legisl ation.html
The box they built themselves into - or rather that they had to build around themselves - isn't so much the box that is the security model in Windows. I have no doubt whatsoever that Microsoft is entirely capable of locking down the system so badly that nobody but the most powerful ueber-god of a SysAdmin can open it back up to a casual user, let alone out to the internet for hackers to 'crack'.
But therein lies the problem as well. Windows users are -not- ueber-gods of SysAdmins, and this shows in the decisions that they feel are forced to make. I can't spot it in all the Slashdot story summaries on Vista right now, but there have been at least two stories in which there was a reference to Microsoft dropping a security feature or loosening a security setting -because- major clients of theirs told them that things were 'just too complex'. And this is in an operating system that guides you through reasonably easy-to-read GUIs with hint balloons and help files up the wazoo. You can well imagine what happens if you'd sit them down behind a screen that just shows a prompt and a one-liner telling them that security settings can be changed by editing the text file "omfglolwtfbbq.conf"
So yes, they're in a box that is difficult to get out of - but that's mostly because their clients make the walls so damn slippery after plating the bricks with titanium and burned down all but one of the ladders, then stationed several million angry users alongside it, hissing and whining at them whenever they try and scale it.
They are, well and truly, damned if they do - and damned if they don't. But at least they realize that they are a little less damned in the first case.
...there are certainly dire consequences -if- the government wants there to be. Just look at the money tracing operations and their exposure: President Bush openly and fiercely attacked those newspapers who have reported on it, stating that they have hurt the U.S.'s cause in tracking down terrorists -and- have done damage to the security of the United States and its citizens. He has done this repeatedly, with the full support of other government officials and branches, and guess what? Recent polls showed that the nation is divided roughly in half on the issue at this time, while when the story was published most people really just didn't care too much -or- were outraged that the U.S. government once again pried in their personal affairs. That is now 50% of people agreeing that they feel less secure now that papers, specifically The New York Times, reported on this secret program, and that they shouldn't have done it and -should- be prohibited from doing so in the future. The U.S. government is doing a great job of making the papers out to be 'the bad guys', and one can only imagine that it's certainly not helping their subscribership.
So yes, they can report whatever they want, but the government can very much make them feel sorry for doing so in financial terms. Thankfully the majority of the papers who have reported it -don't- feel sorry in terms of 'doing the right thing'; as one of the editors said - if they can't report on this, then what's next? Not reporting on Abu Ghraib? Not reporting on 'accidental' bombings of civilians? All in the name of supposed national security.
I can understand - and papers should certainly be wise enough to make this decision for themselves - that papers should -not- publish information regarding specific individuals or programs that would severely compromise those individuals or programs; e.g. operatives abroad who have infiltrated: you don't go publishing their names and photos. Investigations into a terrorist sleeper cell in Hicksville: you don't go publishing that they are under investigation. But for something as broad as "The U.S. government is tracking your international money transfers", there is -no- compromise of the program. If nothing else, sad as it is, most people probably expect that the U.S. government was doing that already, and the U.S. government can happily continue doing so; they can't honestly believe that terrorists will suddenly go "oh dear, I say... they are tracing our money wires.. perhaps we should stop using that.".
Even if none of them get implemented, the point is that Apple holds the patent. So if some company thinks up something similar, or just outright sees the patent and thinks they can make it a commercial success, Apple is going to get a slice of the pie.
Read my reply above to your sibling poster, and I think you'll see we're fairly relaxed about it. And for what it's worth - yes, large portions of our software does run in the background as a service. Those parts that don't do get licensed separately. A user who has a license to work with can do so behind any computer they want on the same network, event through VPN if they're so inclined. If two people need to work concurrently with the same software, on two separate machines, they'll need 2 licenses.
We're also not particularly anal... 10 minutes on google will quickly find us plenty of kids and students using an illicit copy instead of our free version, and we could certainly e-mail them and whatnot... but it's just not worth the effort. But when it comes to a commercial entity, be it an individual or a larger establishment, we will definitely drop them a line.
We do check against more than one piece already - that's why they'll continue to run now. The MAC one is the odd one out simply because the licensing is a floating license setup that goes over the network. That's something we've recently addressed, so it's no longer an issue.
You'll never catch me saying that 'home copies' is ever a good thing, though - not for our product. It works for Adobe with Photoshop, it doesn't work for a more niche product. E.g. you'll get plenty of people saying that home users really have no need for Photoshop anyway and should be getting Paint Shop Pro or even The Gimp - with many countering that Photoshop is what the industry is using, and that is what they should learn if they want to make it in the commercial world - and then going on to claim that once they are in the commercial world, they'll buy Photoshop (right.) or their employer will (they likely already had a license.. no extra there). But say it's a product like a computational fluid dynamics app... what home user could justify having a shared copy of that?;) Whereas a commercial entity, say a car designer, might ponder the convenient way to get an extra license instead of ponying up the extra $$$ to purchase one (CFD apps are expensive buggers. Glad we don't make them.)
We certainly don't treat our customers as enemies, and they certainly don't see our licensing as such either... we're in the very thankful position to have the vast majority of our customers agreeing with the need for licensing (knowing very well that those who aren't legit will often underprice them on bids), and sharing a "not amused" stance on those who use an illicit copy commercially. (Views on home/student/non-commercial use is pretty diverse ranging from a tough stance to prodding for making a free version for these users.... which we do, with only very slightly limited functionality, but limited enough for it to be a hassle to use in a professional setting.) When a commercial license does die completely for whatever reason, we have a very short turn-around to getting them a new one, and if any particular production time is lost on it anyway, we compensate this as much as possible.
Personally I think we're being pretty good about it all, while being realistic. Like I said... if it were a perfect world, I'd have our coders do away with the licensing parts altogether. As it is, we seem to have found a middle road that is acceptable to both sides.
Oh, I fully agree that they shouldn't be able to haphazardly shut down your computer or fail it from booting altogether.
However, I might agree that they should be allowed to pop up a warning messagebox telling the user that they have an illicit copy, and that it will run for a further 30 days (counting down from that first instance) and after that the machine will boot in a minimal (e.g. DOS) state only. Similarly, our software simply fails to run - it doesn't destroy anything, and any in-progress pieces of work will still complete, but no new ones can be generated. It's a pain for both our end-users and ourselves, but sadly a reality both sides have to live with. "Might", because they would need a -very- fast turn-around for those users who are perfectly willing to verify that their copy is legit, and they would need to make that as user-friendly as possible.. and that's -with- the 30-day margin in place. Seems they typically only offer that level of support to those whoy pay extra, unfortunately.
My rant was more about Office and its failing to run according to the article author; which I'd also argue is a bit silly to just fail to run, instead of giving the user at least a 7-day margin, but I can understand -why- it failed to run, at least. Don't agree with it, but understand it %)
Oh, that contract you signed? Well then why on earth did you sign it?
That's really part of my point.. if you're inviting them / letting them to the audit, then wtf is wrong with you? Let them come back with a police warrant, let the police investigate whatevertheheck.
I'll just mention it one more time: You are not obliged to let them conduct their audit. So don't. Unless you want them to.. and you want them to on -their- terms only.. in which case, bend over.
Basically I'm sure the software for his Palm introduced a new networking component that has caused this. It happens with our software all the time. We have a licensing mechanism that ties into a few hardware parts of the computer - the basic HDD serial number and the MAC address being two of them which is public info. So if you introduce a new NIC of any sort, the license breaks. And of course people can go "OMFG WTF!?" all the want - but here's the deal... for those people who, for example, use a USB bluetooth dongle and plug that in and out all the time, the license breaks and unbreaks (we get them a new license which now ties to the MAC of the bluetooth dongle) then breaks again as they remove it, etc we make a new license key that ignores the MAC address.
Now guess what has happened, twice, already...
They come to us and say that they had to replace the HDD after a crash. They send in a new authorization file, we check - the MAC is the same, the machine name is the same, the HDD s/n is different. Fair 'nuff. So we should get them a new license.
Or should we? Because in two verified situations, all the end-user did was rename a second computer, stick their bluetooth USB key in that, and generated an auth for it. So guess what happens? We get them another license file for what should have been the same computer with a different HDD, but which is essentially a second computer; because the MAC identifier was the USB key, the license type is MAC-less, and so will happily run on that computer.
Instant free extra licenses - 'piracy' at its best.
So although the author may whine about a change, probably a network stack change, he has his colleagues in the industry to thank for it - because we all know it's not going to stop the users who specifically set out to get an illegal copy, but it will stop those sneaky bastards who prefer not to get caught with pants down with a known illegal copy and instead have a 'licensed' copy to show to any auditing entity.
In a perfect world, people would be honest. In a perfect world, copy and licensing protections wouldn't have to exist. Here's to all software becoming free-as-in-beer and professional coders finding a way to make a living through other means, so that everybody benefits. Just a shame that's not going to happen anytime soon.
in the event a disgruntled employee reports you are using pirated software (when you aren't), they come in with your invitation So wait.. you invited them. Where's the problem?
and investigate you, there is no reason you should have to pay them.
Well you did invite them - presumably that's verbal contract right there.
Now if the disgruntlyed employee tipped the BSA off, and the BSA just shows up and... oh wait, I guess you could just not let them in. And then they'll have to come back with the proper authorities and a search warrant.
And once they do have that - yep, you'll be screwed whether they find something or not, because it's a huge time and energy drain, not to mention the PR blow, etc. But presuming you -are- a legit shop, you can sue the authorities (who will sue the BSA), sue the BSA -and- sue the whistleblower should you learn who that is, for full restitution, damages, and then some.
I would have to say... no. But they'd be welcome to try it in court. Think of it this way... a person gets murdered, the police has suspects, do their usual checks, come across a Facebook entry from one of them detailing things about the crime that only the perp would know as the information wasn't made public. Would that person get to claim "Oi! The police weren't acting in accordange with the terms of service of Facebook - and as such, the evidence collected was done by (the analogy of) an illegal search!"? I would like to think not.
Now maybe if the information wasn't public on Facebook, and instead stored privately on the server with access only to the author (and some other people - why else place it on there at all), and the police raided the ISP without a court oder and took the data... aye. Otherwise.. nay.
Basically, DirectX is meant as an Interface between Windows and (Video) hardware. It says "if you call my function xxx, I will translate that to a certain call to the hardware". It is terribly easy to make DirectX 10 compatible with XP. You just take DirectX 9, add the new calls, and let them return "sorry, I cannot do that". Then game developers will simply add an option "activate advanced DirectX 10 features" to show off the cool stuff, but any XP user will still be able to play the game. So there is no good reason to exclude XP from the new games market, as Microsoft is trying to do.
Whoa, hey, hold on. How is Microsoft trying to do anything here? okay, probably they are, but just let me address a point you're making...
Then game developers will simply add an option "activate advanced DirectX 10 features" to show off the cool stuff
If the game developers are indeed capable of designing a little checkbox, or dare I say it, radiobuttons for DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 support, then they are already all set, no? I presume that the functionality of this checkbox/radiobutton would be to -not- call DirectX 10-specific functions when the user has it unchecked/set to DirectX 9. And if indeed they can simply not call these DirectX 10-specific functions by knowing which they are (as they very well should), then...
take DirectX 9, add the new calls, and let them return "sorry, I cannot do that"
Is completely unnecessary and a waste of development time, now isn't it?
Either a developer will continue to develop exclusively for DirectX 9 which should work under DirectX 10 or they will develop exclusively for DirectX 10, check whether DirectX 10 is supported on the system, and kindly inform the user that the game won't run if it's not or they will develop for DirectX 10 and gracefully fall back to only using DirectX 9-methods if DirectX 10 is not supported, either by a hard-coded effort, or by testing the DirectX API and checking whether a certain function is made available - if it is, use DirectX 10 - otherwise use DirectX 9; hard-coding would execute faster but be more work to track in development.
None of the above scenarios requires Microsoft to actually -add- those functions to DirectX 9 and then return an error value - worse yet, that would just make life more difficult as you'd need two checks - one for older DirectX 9 installations (calling results in a trappable error/checking results in knowing the function doesn't exist) and one for the newer DirectX 9 (calling results in an error response/checking results in knowing the function does exist - then having to call it anyway to check for an error response).
You could probably 'get by' with cheaper or even free applications. That said, let me do the math indeed...
DreamWeaver 8: $399 Flash Professional 8: $699
The above two combined in Studio 8: $999 Photoshop CS2: $649 Illustrator: $499
The above two combined + InDesign, GoLive, Acrobat Professional: $1,199
Total: $2,198
Seeing as it sounds like you're doing graphics design, you should be able to pay for all of this in 8 jobs if you're really good, bit more if you're not all that good.
Now here's the kicker, though - maybe you can't charge that much. Maybe others are underpricing you. Now take a guess as to why they can underprice you..
The problem isn't that the software is expensive, it's that artists aren't charging enough because they can't: other people who do use unlicensed copies of the software simply charge less and get the contracts instead, so they too have to charge way too little.
For what it's worth.. yes, I do have everything legit - from mIRC to Total Commander to 3ds max (a $3,450 application - but in euros that's nicely converted to E4,250.. do the math back to dollars, if you will.).
If you strongly believe you're right, try calling the police, tell them you just killed somebody, tell them were you are. Wait for them to show up. Wait for them to quickly determine that you did no such thing. Wait for them to slap you around with a fine at best, and a trip down town somewhere along the road to 'at worst'.
Put differently... if a company were to get a networks specialist to check out their network security and that networks specialist determines that their security is already top-notch... should the networks specialist not be compensated?
Work is done regardless of the result, and should be compensated (unless the work done is not that which was agreed upon, etc. etc.)
Your argument Audio CD vs SACD is valid for the most part, imho. The same would go for Audio CD vs DVD-AUDIO. The quality increase is indeed not perceptible by most - certainly not on their gear.
On the other hand, they can both easily store surround sound. An Audio CD could as well, of course, but then it's not really a red book (is that the one?) Audio CD anymore. I know a lot of people did get basic 5.1 speakersets for the audio that comes with DVD movies because it -is- perceptible better.. it's a whole different experience.
HD-DVD (or BlueRay) over DVD might not be as particular a jump. It does have higher resolution, of course, but it doesn't specify anything with regards to possible higher framerates or even better encoding (yes, DVD has better quality than most video - it certainly lasts longer. That said, I absolutely HATE the mpeg block artifacts you get on DVD and sometimes very much prefer the S-VHS copy. If it does specify encodings that pretty much get rid of those blocky artifacts, I'll take one as soon as they become more readily affordable (the higher resolution is an added perk, but I don't mind watching some stuff on my PDA screen - so whatever). If instead the publishers just decided to compress the video more in order to store more trailers / fringe features / whatever like what has happened with DVD.. no thanks.
What is the special magic about technology
on
Immunizing the Internet
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Imagine if this was the so-manieth discussion about music or video copyright infringement. Now ask again: "What is the special magic about technology". I think you'll find your answer.
I don't agree with it, for what it's worth, in either case.
...that this shit has been around as components for PCs (the 'IBM' kind, I know a Mac is a PC) for a long time now. Yet nobody's been running out to buy these as extras to have this sort of fun with. The only thing 'Apple' should be credited with is adding them out of the box indeed... it's the users who are finally having fun with it, because it's there without having to pay extra and attach devices.
That said.. those new SONY VAIOs (OMG ROOTKIT PONIES!) have a fingerprint reader built-in... c'mon VAIO users, hop to it, 'Think Different', and make Slashdot's front page.
GP probably meant by 'powerful' magnets the kind you can get at scientific supplies shops, or even (in slightly less powerful degree) at ThinkGeek.
The 'powerful' in the article refers to the power akin to an MRI scanner. Ever see that video of somebody holding a scissor on a string several feet away from the aperture, and the scissor points straight to it with some duress on the holder's finger from the string when the MRI is on?
Suffice to say that nobody in a home/office environment is going to have one those 'powerful' magnets laying around.
Me - I settled for "Darik's Boot and Nuke" as part of the Eraser program to wipe two old computers, and will again for a third shortly. They never had highly classified or particularly sensitive information - just stopping the casual users from retrieving old porn. I hate porn pirates.
If losing your data is 'just plain unacceptable', then why did you get that PDA? The reason I ask is that it should have been made clear to you that if e.g. your battery runs fully out, you also lose all your data that isn't written away to your slot-in memory card on a WM2003 device.
That's one of the 'big' features of WM5; persistent storage (that is, writing out data to flash memory)
I use spindles myself, and the very basic supercheap trick I use is to cut out some CD/DVD-sized pieces of paper with a 'tab' on it to write a genre/series title/whatever - you can even color-code if you want to get fancy like that. Furthermore I have three different spindles: one for movies, one for all computer software, and one for photo archives+recorded TV shows+whatever else.
So if I'm looking for e.g. War Games, I merely have to grab the Movies spindle, open it up, look for the SciFi tab, and it's only a quick search between 8 or so discs, instead of all 80+ in the spindle.
That said, retrieving the disc in question is still a hassle (lift off all those on top, retrieve disc, place the rest back)... but the worst thing is - You cannot buy these damn spindles separately. So if you buy a spindle - great, now you have storage space. But wtf are you going to do with the 100 CD-Rs that came with it? %) Not to mention that you paid for all those CD-Rs.
that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started fighting it, not knowing what it was for, and they'll continue fighting it forever just because... this is the war that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend...
One more thing that helped make it popular - accessories; there aren't just a lot of them because the iPod is popular, it's because the iPod has a fairly fixed form factor, a single connector type that allows you access to the thing, feedback from it, and of course the audio itself, and fairly simple-to-follow licensing setups from Apple.
Compare that to just about every other music player out there. With audio you're probably all set - it's going to be either a 3.5mm or a 2.5mm plug - but for everything else, you'll need special connector X. Plus you'll run into all the different form factor and design issues. The other players are just not as interesting for accessory makers beyond the ugly generic stuff. In turn, users who want a player with accessories A, B and C will quickly notice that for the iPod, they will 'just work', and look good with the iPod as well.
It's likely not to be the main deciding factor to get an iPod, but it's factor that shouldn't be underestimated either.
"The Mobile Web" to finally take off. I don't want it to take off - and I doubt it will anytime soon. I'll get back to you on "why is that?" in a moment.
Its not better screens Define better? A lot of the screens on current cellphones are color - be it 4096 colors, of 16bit color - how many more colors do you need to enjoy the web? Now if you were editing a 4k film plate on your mobile version of Shake.. okay. Do you mean size, then? Well, get a PDA instead. But wait, then you have a big device, instead of the tiny but status-symbol that e.g. a RAZR is made out to be. Guess what, until those rollup screens come out and make us all a communicator a la that in Earth:Final Conflict - or they create a supertiny projector (and then you need to have a surface to project on all the time...), large screen = large device. What else is wrong with current screens then? Resolution? Sure.. most cellphones are horrible in that regard.. PDAs are QVGA or VGA, some mobile devices are 1024x768. The latter two can quite comfortably display most websites, and even QVGA devices do well with on-the-fly rescaling, or changing the layout. Lack of CSS and full javascript support is doing more to hurt the experience than the screen size.
useable input devicesp Ditto to above. Yes, cellular phones obviously have limited keys.. for a reason; a full keyboard takes up more space. If you want a full keyboard, you can get one of the many PDAs that have one; and then you may complain about the keyboard still being too tiny, but you can always get a bluetooth (mini) keyboard and use that - but then you need to haul that around. So again, if you want a big(ger) keyboard, you'll have to settle for a big(ger) device for now. Alternative to implementing a full hardware keyboard is to implement a software keyboard on a touch screen; again.. see PDA.
durable equipment You'll have to define durable; my old cell phone has been living for 6 years now... the only reason others around me have replaced theirs within 1.5-2 years is because they 'needed' to have a new one (read: shinier, smallers, cuter, status symbol, etc.). Admittedly, so did I - I upgraded to a PocketPC phone, but mostly because I needed to be able to have wireless internet access, and my old cellular phone had only limited internet access through a provider portal; will get back on that one as well.
with long battery life Same issue here.. unless you plan to be online surfing the web 24/7, your battery will easily last 3 or more days on a PocketPC. Even longer on a cellphone (there's simply less hardware to power). Anywhere in those days, you can easily charge your device again overnight - if you can't, then I suspect you'll have more pressing issues to deal with than lack of (comfortable) mobile web access...
and low cost, cheap available bandwidth That is an issue. T-Mobile seems to be doing OK with their flat-fee, but it's still about as expensive as a full broadband internet connection. But if you need it - it's not a bad deal.. beats e.g. $3/MB (or part thereof)
or security end users can be confident in Not sure what you mean by that one... did your mobile device get a virus lately? Some hacker got root on it? I know there has been some viruses that spread via Bluetooth, and I'm sure this will increase as the various mobile operating systems become more powerful, but I don't see that as a big issue currently.
Now back to why I don't want a mobile web to take off per se: We have a web, and it works. We have portable devices that become more powerful all the time. In the foreseeable future, devices will quite easily display existing web content, and let the user interact with it. So why do we want a separate 'mobile' web? Of course there will always be some devices, such as small cellphones, which would simply not work with existing web content due to their small screen sizes/input limitations, etc. But would those who want full web access r
Slashdot Mirror
Now re-read that...
I'll paraphrase... "Sony is going to drive consumers to the competitors."
Therefore, there is no perfectly valid argument being made (the wrong assumption being that SONY kept the price high to get people to buy Blu-Ray "because it's more expensive, it must be better")... but if there were, then yes, driving the consumers to the competitor would be a pretty well-placed shot in their own foot.. but if that's what they set out to do, I guess they still win in a suicidal sort of way?
Hate replying to myself, but here's a nice example of this happening only 3 days after my post (not implying relation):
2 236
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/15/17
Microsoft Retracts Private Folder Option
"Just recently, an update to Windows added the option to password-encrypt a personal folder. The intent was to allow users who share PCs to have a measure of privacy, but C|Net reports the company is now removing that functionality with a patch. IT managers hit the roof when the option was added, complaining of the possibility of lost passwords and inaccessible data."
Your post, that is... in a nutshell - if you say sorry, you admit wrondoing, and you open yourself up to litigation.
l ation.html
This blog has a bit of a story about that possibly no longer being the case in british columbia, as well as an organisation whose goal is to do away with the nonsense of sorry == admitting guilt altogether:
http://www.boosman.com/blog/2006/04/apology_legis
...it probably requires clarification.
The box they built themselves into - or rather that they had to build around themselves - isn't so much the box that is the security model in Windows. I have no doubt whatsoever that Microsoft is entirely capable of locking down the system so badly that nobody but the most powerful ueber-god of a SysAdmin can open it back up to a casual user, let alone out to the internet for hackers to 'crack'.
But therein lies the problem as well. Windows users are -not- ueber-gods of SysAdmins, and this shows in the decisions that they feel are forced to make. I can't spot it in all the Slashdot story summaries on Vista right now, but there have been at least two stories in which there was a reference to Microsoft dropping a security feature or loosening a security setting -because- major clients of theirs told them that things were 'just too complex'. And this is in an operating system that guides you through reasonably easy-to-read GUIs with hint balloons and help files up the wazoo. You can well imagine what happens if you'd sit them down behind a screen that just shows a prompt and a one-liner telling them that security settings can be changed by editing the text file "omfglolwtfbbq.conf"
So yes, they're in a box that is difficult to get out of - but that's mostly because their clients make the walls so damn slippery after plating the bricks with titanium and burned down all but one of the ladders, then stationed several million angry users alongside it, hissing and whining at them whenever they try and scale it.
They are, well and truly, damned if they do - and damned if they don't. But at least they realize that they are a little less damned in the first case.
...there are certainly dire consequences -if- the government wants there to be. Just look at the money tracing operations and their exposure: President Bush openly and fiercely attacked those newspapers who have reported on it, stating that they have hurt the U.S.'s cause in tracking down terrorists -and- have done damage to the security of the United States and its citizens. He has done this repeatedly, with the full support of other government officials and branches, and guess what? Recent polls showed that the nation is divided roughly in half on the issue at this time, while when the story was published most people really just didn't care too much -or- were outraged that the U.S. government once again pried in their personal affairs. That is now 50% of people agreeing that they feel less secure now that papers, specifically The New York Times, reported on this secret program, and that they shouldn't have done it and -should- be prohibited from doing so in the future. The U.S. government is doing a great job of making the papers out to be 'the bad guys', and one can only imagine that it's certainly not helping their subscribership.
So yes, they can report whatever they want, but the government can very much make them feel sorry for doing so in financial terms. Thankfully the majority of the papers who have reported it -don't- feel sorry in terms of 'doing the right thing'; as one of the editors said - if they can't report on this, then what's next? Not reporting on Abu Ghraib? Not reporting on 'accidental' bombings of civilians? All in the name of supposed national security.
I can understand - and papers should certainly be wise enough to make this decision for themselves - that papers should -not- publish information regarding specific individuals or programs that would severely compromise those individuals or programs; e.g. operatives abroad who have infiltrated: you don't go publishing their names and photos. Investigations into a terrorist sleeper cell in Hicksville: you don't go publishing that they are under investigation. But for something as broad as "The U.S. government is tracking your international money transfers", there is -no- compromise of the program. If nothing else, sad as it is, most people probably expect that the U.S. government was doing that already, and the U.S. government can happily continue doing so; they can't honestly believe that terrorists will suddenly go "oh dear, I say... they are tracing our money wires.. perhaps we should stop using that.".
Elections must be coming up again soon...
Even if none of them get implemented, the point is that Apple holds the patent. So if some company thinks up something similar, or just outright sees the patent and thinks they can make it a commercial success, Apple is going to get a slice of the pie.
*grin*
Read my reply above to your sibling poster, and I think you'll see we're fairly relaxed about it. And for what it's worth - yes, large portions of our software does run in the background as a service. Those parts that don't do get licensed separately. A user who has a license to work with can do so behind any computer they want on the same network, event through VPN if they're so inclined. If two people need to work concurrently with the same software, on two separate machines, they'll need 2 licenses.
We're also not particularly anal... 10 minutes on google will quickly find us plenty of kids and students using an illicit copy instead of our free version, and we could certainly e-mail them and whatnot... but it's just not worth the effort. But when it comes to a commercial entity, be it an individual or a larger establishment, we will definitely drop them a line.
We do check against more than one piece already - that's why they'll continue to run now. The MAC one is the odd one out simply because the licensing is a floating license setup that goes over the network. That's something we've recently addressed, so it's no longer an issue.
;) Whereas a commercial entity, say a car designer, might ponder the convenient way to get an extra license instead of ponying up the extra $$$ to purchase one (CFD apps are expensive buggers. Glad we don't make them.)
You'll never catch me saying that 'home copies' is ever a good thing, though - not for our product. It works for Adobe with Photoshop, it doesn't work for a more niche product. E.g. you'll get plenty of people saying that home users really have no need for Photoshop anyway and should be getting Paint Shop Pro or even The Gimp - with many countering that Photoshop is what the industry is using, and that is what they should learn if they want to make it in the commercial world - and then going on to claim that once they are in the commercial world, they'll buy Photoshop (right.) or their employer will (they likely already had a license.. no extra there). But say it's a product like a computational fluid dynamics app... what home user could justify having a shared copy of that?
We certainly don't treat our customers as enemies, and they certainly don't see our licensing as such either... we're in the very thankful position to have the vast majority of our customers agreeing with the need for licensing (knowing very well that those who aren't legit will often underprice them on bids), and sharing a "not amused" stance on those who use an illicit copy commercially. (Views on home/student/non-commercial use is pretty diverse ranging from a tough stance to prodding for making a free version for these users.... which we do, with only very slightly limited functionality, but limited enough for it to be a hassle to use in a professional setting.)
When a commercial license does die completely for whatever reason, we have a very short turn-around to getting them a new one, and if any particular production time is lost on it anyway, we compensate this as much as possible.
Personally I think we're being pretty good about it all, while being realistic. Like I said... if it were a perfect world, I'd have our coders do away with the licensing parts altogether. As it is, we seem to have found a middle road that is acceptable to both sides.
Oh, I fully agree that they shouldn't be able to haphazardly shut down your computer or fail it from booting altogether.
However, I might agree that they should be allowed to pop up a warning messagebox telling the user that they have an illicit copy, and that it will run for a further 30 days (counting down from that first instance) and after that the machine will boot in a minimal (e.g. DOS) state only. Similarly, our software simply fails to run - it doesn't destroy anything, and any in-progress pieces of work will still complete, but no new ones can be generated. It's a pain for both our end-users and ourselves, but sadly a reality both sides have to live with.
"Might", because they would need a -very- fast turn-around for those users who are perfectly willing to verify that their copy is legit, and they would need to make that as user-friendly as possible.. and that's -with- the 30-day margin in place. Seems they typically only offer that level of support to those whoy pay extra, unfortunately.
My rant was more about Office and its failing to run according to the article author; which I'd also argue is a bit silly to just fail to run, instead of giving the user at least a 7-day margin, but I can understand -why- it failed to run, at least. Don't agree with it, but understand it %)
"basically you agree from the time of an audit"
says who?
Oh, that contract you signed? Well then why on earth did you sign it?
That's really part of my point.. if you're inviting them / letting them to the audit, then wtf is wrong with you? Let them come back with a police warrant, let the police investigate whatevertheheck.
I'll just mention it one more time: You are not obliged to let them conduct their audit. So don't. Unless you want them to.. and you want them to on -their- terms only.. in which case, bend over.
Basically I'm sure the software for his Palm introduced a new networking component that has caused this. It happens with our software all the time. We have a licensing mechanism that ties into a few hardware parts of the computer - the basic HDD serial number and the MAC address being two of them which is public info. So if you introduce a new NIC of any sort, the license breaks. And of course people can go "OMFG WTF!?" all the want - but here's the deal... for those people who, for example, use a USB bluetooth dongle and plug that in and out all the time, the license breaks and unbreaks (we get them a new license which now ties to the MAC of the bluetooth dongle) then breaks again as they remove it, etc we make a new license key that ignores the MAC address.
Now guess what has happened, twice, already...
They come to us and say that they had to replace the HDD after a crash. They send in a new authorization file, we check - the MAC is the same, the machine name is the same, the HDD s/n is different. Fair 'nuff. So we should get them a new license.
Or should we? Because in two verified situations, all the end-user did was rename a second computer, stick their bluetooth USB key in that, and generated an auth for it. So guess what happens? We get them another license file for what should have been the same computer with a different HDD, but which is essentially a second computer; because the MAC identifier was the USB key, the license type is MAC-less, and so will happily run on that computer.
Instant free extra licenses - 'piracy' at its best.
So although the author may whine about a change, probably a network stack change, he has his colleagues in the industry to thank for it - because we all know it's not going to stop the users who specifically set out to get an illegal copy, but it will stop those sneaky bastards who prefer not to get caught with pants down with a known illegal copy and instead have a 'licensed' copy to show to any auditing entity.
In a perfect world, people would be honest. In a perfect world, copy and licensing protections wouldn't have to exist. Here's to all software becoming free-as-in-beer and professional coders finding a way to make a living through other means, so that everybody benefits. Just a shame that's not going to happen anytime soon.
I would have to say... no. But they'd be welcome to try it in court. Think of it this way... a person gets murdered, the police has suspects, do their usual checks, come across a Facebook entry from one of them detailing things about the crime that only the perp would know as the information wasn't made public. Would that person get to claim "Oi! The police weren't acting in accordange with the terms of service of Facebook - and as such, the evidence collected was done by (the analogy of) an illegal search!"? I would like to think not.
Now maybe if the information wasn't public on Facebook, and instead stored privately on the server with access only to the author (and some other people - why else place it on there at all), and the police raided the ISP without a court oder and took the data... aye. Otherwise.. nay.
Whoa, hey, hold on. How is Microsoft trying to do anything here? okay, probably they are, but just let me address a point you're making...
If the game developers are indeed capable of designing a little checkbox, or dare I say it, radiobuttons for DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 support, then they are already all set, no? I presume that the functionality of this checkbox/radiobutton would be to -not- call DirectX 10-specific functions when the user has it unchecked/set to DirectX 9. And if indeed they can simply not call these DirectX 10-specific functions by knowing which they are (as they very well should), then...
Is completely unnecessary and a waste of development time, now isn't it?
Either a developer will continue to develop exclusively for DirectX 9 which should work under DirectX 10
or they will develop exclusively for DirectX 10, check whether DirectX 10 is supported on the system, and kindly inform the user that the game won't run if it's not
or they will develop for DirectX 10 and gracefully fall back to only using DirectX 9-methods if DirectX 10 is not supported, either by a hard-coded effort, or by testing the DirectX API and checking whether a certain function is made available - if it is, use DirectX 10 - otherwise use DirectX 9; hard-coding would execute faster but be more work to track in development.
None of the above scenarios requires Microsoft to actually -add- those functions to DirectX 9 and then return an error value - worse yet, that would just make life more difficult as you'd need two checks - one for older DirectX 9 installations (calling results in a trappable error/checking results in knowing the function doesn't exist) and one for the newer DirectX 9 (calling results in an error response/checking results in knowing the function does exist - then having to call it anyway to check for an error response).
You could probably 'get by' with cheaper or even free applications. That said, let me do the math indeed...
DreamWeaver 8: $399
Flash Professional 8: $699
The above two combined in Studio 8: $999
Photoshop CS2: $649
Illustrator: $499
The above two combined + InDesign, GoLive, Acrobat Professional: $1,199
Total: $2,198
Seeing as it sounds like you're doing graphics design, you should be able to pay for all of this in 8 jobs if you're really good, bit more if you're not all that good.
Now here's the kicker, though - maybe you can't charge that much. Maybe others are underpricing you. Now take a guess as to why they can underprice you..
The problem isn't that the software is expensive, it's that artists aren't charging enough because they can't: other people who do use unlicensed copies of the software simply charge less and get the contracts instead, so they too have to charge way too little.
For what it's worth.. yes, I do have everything legit - from mIRC to Total Commander to 3ds max (a $3,450 application - but in euros that's nicely converted to E4,250.. do the math back to dollars, if you will.).
If you strongly believe you're right, try calling the police, tell them you just killed somebody, tell them were you are. Wait for them to show up. Wait for them to quickly determine that you did no such thing. Wait for them to slap you around with a fine at best, and a trip down town somewhere along the road to 'at worst'.
Put differently... if a company were to get a networks specialist to check out their network security and that networks specialist determines that their security is already top-notch... should the networks specialist not be compensated?
Work is done regardless of the result, and should be compensated (unless the work done is not that which was agreed upon, etc. etc.)
Your argument Audio CD vs SACD is valid for the most part, imho. The same would go for Audio CD vs DVD-AUDIO. The quality increase is indeed not perceptible by most - certainly not on their gear.
On the other hand, they can both easily store surround sound. An Audio CD could as well, of course, but then it's not really a red book (is that the one?) Audio CD anymore. I know a lot of people did get basic 5.1 speakersets for the audio that comes with DVD movies because it -is- perceptible better.. it's a whole different experience.
HD-DVD (or BlueRay) over DVD might not be as particular a jump. It does have higher resolution, of course, but it doesn't specify anything with regards to possible higher framerates or even better encoding (yes, DVD has better quality than most video - it certainly lasts longer. That said, I absolutely HATE the mpeg block artifacts you get on DVD and sometimes very much prefer the S-VHS copy.
If it does specify encodings that pretty much get rid of those blocky artifacts, I'll take one as soon as they become more readily affordable (the higher resolution is an added perk, but I don't mind watching some stuff on my PDA screen - so whatever). If instead the publishers just decided to compress the video more in order to store more trailers / fringe features / whatever like what has happened with DVD.. no thanks.
Imagine if this was the so-manieth discussion about music or video copyright infringement. Now ask again: "What is the special magic about technology". I think you'll find your answer.
I don't agree with it, for what it's worth, in either case.
...that this shit has been around as components for PCs (the 'IBM' kind, I know a Mac is a PC) for a long time now. Yet nobody's been running out to buy these as extras to have this sort of fun with. The only thing 'Apple' should be credited with is adding them out of the box indeed... it's the users who are finally having fun with it, because it's there without having to pay extra and attach devices.
That said.. those new SONY VAIOs (OMG ROOTKIT PONIES!) have a fingerprint reader built-in... c'mon VAIO users, hop to it, 'Think Different', and make Slashdot's front page.
GP probably meant by 'powerful' magnets the kind you can get at scientific supplies shops, or even (in slightly less powerful degree) at ThinkGeek.
The 'powerful' in the article refers to the power akin to an MRI scanner. Ever see that video of somebody holding a scissor on a string several feet away from the aperture, and the scissor points straight to it with some duress on the holder's finger from the string when the MRI is on?
Suffice to say that nobody in a home/office environment is going to have one those 'powerful' magnets laying around.
Me - I settled for "Darik's Boot and Nuke" as part of the Eraser program to wipe two old computers, and will again for a third shortly. They never had highly classified or particularly sensitive information - just stopping the casual users from retrieving old porn. I hate porn pirates.
If losing your data is 'just plain unacceptable', then why did you get that PDA? The reason I ask is that it should have been made clear to you that if e.g. your battery runs fully out, you also lose all your data that isn't written away to your slot-in memory card on a WM2003 device.
That's one of the 'big' features of WM5; persistent storage (that is, writing out data to flash memory)
I use spindles myself, and the very basic supercheap trick I use is to cut out some CD/DVD-sized pieces of paper with a 'tab' on it to write a genre/series title/whatever - you can even color-code if you want to get fancy like that. Furthermore I have three different spindles: one for movies, one for all computer software, and one for photo archives+recorded TV shows+whatever else.
So if I'm looking for e.g. War Games, I merely have to grab the Movies spindle, open it up, look for the SciFi tab, and it's only a quick search between 8 or so discs, instead of all 80+ in the spindle.
That said, retrieving the disc in question is still a hassle (lift off all those on top, retrieve disc, place the rest back)... but the worst thing is - You cannot buy these damn spindles separately. So if you buy a spindle - great, now you have storage space. But wtf are you going to do with the 100 CD-Rs that came with it? %) Not to mention that you paid for all those CD-Rs.
that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started fighting it, not knowing what it was for, and they'll continue fighting it forever just because... this is the war that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend...
One more thing that helped make it popular - accessories; there aren't just a lot of them because the iPod is popular, it's because the iPod has a fairly fixed form factor, a single connector type that allows you access to the thing, feedback from it, and of course the audio itself, and fairly simple-to-follow licensing setups from Apple.
Compare that to just about every other music player out there. With audio you're probably all set - it's going to be either a 3.5mm or a 2.5mm plug - but for everything else, you'll need special connector X. Plus you'll run into all the different form factor and design issues. The other players are just not as interesting for accessory makers beyond the ugly generic stuff.
In turn, users who want a player with accessories A, B and C will quickly notice that for the iPod, they will 'just work', and look good with the iPod as well.
It's likely not to be the main deciding factor to get an iPod, but it's factor that shouldn't be underestimated either.
"The Mobile Web" to finally take off.
I don't want it to take off - and I doubt it will anytime soon. I'll get back to you on "why is that?" in a moment.
Its not better screens
Define better?
A lot of the screens on current cellphones are color - be it 4096 colors, of 16bit color - how many more colors do you need to enjoy the web? Now if you were editing a 4k film plate on your mobile version of Shake.. okay.
Do you mean size, then? Well, get a PDA instead. But wait, then you have a big device, instead of the tiny but status-symbol that e.g. a RAZR is made out to be. Guess what, until those rollup screens come out and make us all a communicator a la that in Earth:Final Conflict - or they create a supertiny projector (and then you need to have a surface to project on all the time...), large screen = large device.
What else is wrong with current screens then? Resolution? Sure.. most cellphones are horrible in that regard.. PDAs are QVGA or VGA, some mobile devices are 1024x768. The latter two can quite comfortably display most websites, and even QVGA devices do well with on-the-fly rescaling, or changing the layout. Lack of CSS and full javascript support is doing more to hurt the experience than the screen size.
useable input devicesp
Ditto to above. Yes, cellular phones obviously have limited keys.. for a reason; a full keyboard takes up more space. If you want a full keyboard, you can get one of the many PDAs that have one; and then you may complain about the keyboard still being too tiny, but you can always get a bluetooth (mini) keyboard and use that - but then you need to haul that around. So again, if you want a big(ger) keyboard, you'll have to settle for a big(ger) device for now.
Alternative to implementing a full hardware keyboard is to implement a software keyboard on a touch screen; again.. see PDA.
durable equipment
You'll have to define durable; my old cell phone has been living for 6 years now... the only reason others around me have replaced theirs within 1.5-2 years is because they 'needed' to have a new one (read: shinier, smallers, cuter, status symbol, etc.). Admittedly, so did I - I upgraded to a PocketPC phone, but mostly because I needed to be able to have wireless internet access, and my old cellular phone had only limited internet access through a provider portal; will get back on that one as well.
with long battery life
Same issue here.. unless you plan to be online surfing the web 24/7, your battery will easily last 3 or more days on a PocketPC. Even longer on a cellphone (there's simply less hardware to power). Anywhere in those days, you can easily charge your device again overnight - if you can't, then I suspect you'll have more pressing issues to deal with than lack of (comfortable) mobile web access...
and low cost, cheap available bandwidth
That is an issue. T-Mobile seems to be doing OK with their flat-fee, but it's still about as expensive as a full broadband internet connection. But if you need it - it's not a bad deal.. beats e.g. $3/MB (or part thereof)
or security end users can be confident in
Not sure what you mean by that one... did your mobile device get a virus lately? Some hacker got root on it?
I know there has been some viruses that spread via Bluetooth, and I'm sure this will increase as the various mobile operating systems become more powerful, but I don't see that as a big issue currently.
Now back to why I don't want a mobile web to take off per se: We have a web, and it works. We have portable devices that become more powerful all the time. In the foreseeable future, devices will quite easily display existing web content, and let the user interact with it. So why do we want a separate 'mobile' web?
Of course there will always be some devices, such as small cellphones, which would simply not work with existing web content due to their small screen sizes/input limitations, etc. But would those who want full web access r