iDVD is the authoring tool, the expensive front end to a cheap piece of hardware. If you do this crack, you've essentially "stolen" (I hate to use the word, because it means so many different things in different contexts) Apple's R&D. You've got a product which you didn't pay for that was developed at great expense for the purpose of selling Apple hardware and modified it to work on non-Apple hardware. You've circumvented Apple's methods for protecting their R&D investment.
For the machine? Yes. For the development of iDVD? No.
iDVD is a great FREE tool for CD authoring, better than many EXPENSIVE tools out there. Apple didn't write it just to be nice, they wrote it to sell DVD burners.
Apple wrote the software, at their expense, and distributes it *free of charge* in order to sell their hardware. Now, a third party application cracks the hardware restrictions, allowing non-Apple DVD drives (for which they've received no revenue) to utilize their software. Without this crack, to use the software you're required to provide Apple revenue through the purchase of an Apple DVD writer (even if that's bundled in a new system).
If you want to use Apple's software is worth using, it's worth compensating Apple for it's development. If you want to use a non-Apple DVD writer, that's fine - the OS will let you. Just grab one of the other award-winning, easy to use, and powerful DVD authoring apps out there that are free. Now, where did I see those...
Now we just need harddisks that can sustain a 150Mb/s data-transfer rate.
The reason this is useful is that you have a larger bus bandwidth, not that it benefits any one particular device.
Having a faster bus, and more addressable devices will give SCSI some serious competition. Being able to effectively handle a larger number of devices, a RAID stripe of fast devices might actually be able to do something with this newfound bandwidth. Add in devices like CDRW, DVD-RW, etc, and you can see where the bus bandwidth can become a limiting factor.
For many users, however, even the current 33/66/100 ATA revisions are more than enough... when you're just pulling data from a single hard drive, the extra bandwidth means nothing.
where could i see the mainframes in this? i mean, how are they situated compared to the plain-household-linux-servers and the *big box* servers
IANAMF (I Am Not A Mainframe Admin), but they're kind of sitting next to the big Unix servers. They're a completely different mindset when it comes to architecture, but remember that Unix (and the follow on hardware) came from mainframe guys, and while they wanted to improve on the design you usually start with what you know.
The big difference between server class hardware (mainframe or otherwise) and consumer class hardware is their ability to handle large amounts of data and transactions (more or less) simultaneously.
Why in the world did each server cost them anything? They already had 32 servers, and I am sure Linux would have ran on them, so why didn't they save the 96,000 and just use existing hardware..
How are you sure of this? Microchannel architecture RS/6000s (don't laugh, there's THOUSANDS of them still in production) don't run Linux, and even if you can (or someone has) - the hardware is so outdated as to be pointless. I'm not familiar with the hardware from other Unix vendors, but I'll bet you'll find a lot of legacy hardware out there still in production that won't run Linux.
In addition, they make it sound like "Unix Hardware" is more expernsive than "Linux Hardware", which while Linux works on just about anything, I don't see why they didn't use 3,000 dollar each machines for Unix in the first place.
You've obviously not spent much time around server class hardware. The "first place" in this case is probably 10 years ago when your only REAL options for server class Unix hardware WAS the $50k machines from the big guys (IBM, Sun, HP, etc).
The major cost difference between desktop/consumer class hardware and server class hardware is engineering, not MHz, GBs, MIPS or any of the other numbers that people like to throw around when talking about WinTel vs. IBM/Sun/HP/etc. Try pushing millions of database records through your PC's IO bus, and then do the same with any of the big Unix boxes out there. You'll suddenly understand where those other $47k went.
This article is fatally flawed in a number of areas, but the fact remains that the *IS* a place for "real" servers over the hopped up desktops that a lot of people call Linux servers. For what it's worth (not much), I'm a professional sysadmin on the "big" boxes, and also run Linux servers personally so I see both sides.
Formally such people are known as "litigants in person". Informally, lawyers call them "easy meat".
The litigants to which you refer are not the educated, informed, and well reasoned laypeople to which I refer. The people are "easy meat" are those who typically have a shaky legal stance to begin with, and don't rely on the services of a professional to find the most effective method of presenting that however flawed argument.
As for understanding 'legality' whatever that is, Yes you may understand the words in the statute but in a legal context they may not mean quite what you think they do.
I think you underestimate the capabilities of any individual litigant. While people by in large are generally clueless - you'll run into someone like me some day that will surprise you.
Litigating is for professionals.
Somehow I think you're a bit biased based on your profession - though I suppose I'm biased as well by my desire to be self-reliant.
I think the major issue here is what kinds of cases are managable by an intelligent, well informed layperson, and which are better left to professionals. My original point (which has been completely lost to those who want to take EVERY point to it's not so logical extreme) was that you do NOT have to be a lawyer (or law student) to effectively utilize the legal system, up to and including representing yourself against professional lawyers.
Lawyers certainly have their place... it's not however, as most of you would have us believe, a necessity to have your services to prevail in any legal context. In as much as the automotive oil industry would have us believe that changing our oil every 3000 miles is critical (which, BTW, sells a LOT more oil than is truly necessary), so too would the legal profession have us believe that we cannot manage our own legal affairs.
There's a difference between understanding something and knowing how to apply knowledge in an expert fashion. Don't demean skills that you don't understand or appreciate.
With all due respect for lawyers (geeze, never thought THOSE words would cross my lips...err...fingers), my point was NOT that any average schmoe can effective manage a court case. It was simply that your moderately intelligent layperson CAN understand legal issues, CAN understand legal documentation given the motivation, and CAN produce resonable and convincing legal arguments to support their positions.
While not a lawyer myself (nor would I like to be), I do have significant experience in successfully managing legal affairs, lawsuits, etc without the benefit of law school, or even college for that matter. The resources are available for anyone to school themselves in procedure and nomenclature relating to legal matters.
Much of what makes a lawyer effective is *NOT* their knowledge of the legal system. Laws, technicalities, etc... that can all be dug up by a minimum-wage intern with access to a decent law library and the Internet. What makes a good lawyer effective is their communication skills and being able to articulate their position.
But you forget, the parent poster here is a slashdot reader. To him, everything is perfectly understandable.
Alright, you're trolling, but I'll bite.
My argument was not that I am (or anyone else is, for that matter) an expert in law, physics, cryptography, biology, etc, but simply that this attitude that all things in the realm of law are exclusively in the domain of lawyers is ludicrous.
On the flip side of this, non-geeks know nothing. How could a politician ever understand technology?
This is exactly the same attitude I refer to. Everyone seems to thing that they are the masters of their domain, and no one outside it could possibly be reasonably competent in it.
To quote Mel Gibson, "Let's just say I'm agreeing with you in a totally unusual way."
Luckily most porn discs are small as they don't include a lot of additional information, so they can usually be duplicated... at least that's what I've heard
I mean... I heard... yeah... a friend... of a friend... told me about it... umm... not that'd I ever tried... I mean... uh....
And reality is, as I understand it now, that it's ok to break whatever laws you feel like as long as you feel like you MIGHT be injusticed by PROPOSED legislation?
This is probably the fifth post of yours that has gone on about 'alternative legal methods', while not actually citing any of them. What are these 'alternative legal methods' you hold in such high esteem, and why do you seem so assured that they will work in this scenario?
How about participating the legal process, like testifying before Congress? How about submitting your own bills? How about rallying support to defeat the bills? So far, the only things I've seen quoted as options are letter writing campaigns and then straight into civil disobedience.
If a crime of aggression (ie. attack or subversion, physical or informational) is 'legalized' for a special group, but illegalized for another group, there is nothing ethically wrong with the attacked group fighting back using the same means, regardless of what the law might say.
The point you're missing in your entire rant is that the crime has not yet been legalized, and the activity I am refusing to condone is the commission of a crime while that which they are protesting is not yet legal. In fact, they are commiting a crime to protest the legislative process.
Just curious, but what do you consider a "major wrong", and please explain to us why you believe what the RIAA is doing does not fall into that category.
I won't get into a pissing contest about which rights are more important than others, but I will address your secondary question. What the RIAA is doing is proposing legislation that will allow them recourse against a perceived threat to their business. Note that they're attempting to change laws, through legal channels, which they disagree with - they haven't simply started doing it and then asked for forgiveness or justified their actions - they're looking for legal means to carry out their objectives. Whether or not you agree with the objectives or their methods, you have to acknowledge that they're using the system as it was designed.
I'm as anti-RIAA as the next guy, but I don't support guerilla tactics when alternative legal methods still exist.
As a particular AC stated earlier, the DMCA was passed along despite all of the letter campaigns written against it.
The legal remedies look pretty exhausted to me.
Your view of legal remedies is limited to letter writing campaigns? No wonder we can't change anything, when the populous writes a letter and then throws up their hands, saying that's all that's available.
When all reasonably fair options are exhausted in today's world in a dispute, the only options are subversion, bureaucracy, and violence. Which one do you choose?
This is an important distinction. In this case, all reasonably fair options have NOT been exhausted, and therefore civil disobedience is NOT warranted - it's simply an excuse for the script kiddies to "get back" at an entity which they feel has wronged them.
just because something is illegal does not mean it is wrong, and vice versa.
As a generally law abiding citizen, you have the responsibility to exhaust all available LEGAL methods of protest, before resorting to the often misunderstood and misused concept of civil disobediance. While civil disobediance has it's place, it's not as a cover to simply break any law with which you disagree.
Review my other reply elsewhere in this thread. You surely can't argue that the "right" to DoS someone who's supporting legislation that you disagree with is on par with the works of the extraordinary individuals you mentioned. To compare the "right" of the script kiddie to attack an entity with Ghandi, Rosa Parks, and MLK Jr. is to undermine and soil their legacies.
What the fuck happened to good old-fashioned civil disobedience?
You'll note (or not, based on your lengthy reply) that I said "except in extreme cases". Civil disobedience is not an excuse to break any law you feel like breaking - it's a tool used to right (or attempt, anyway) a major wrong. Driving 90 in a 55 isn't civil disobedience, it's just flat breaking the law, regardless of what you think of the law. Civil disobedience is a tool of last resort when all other methods have failed, and the outcome is of critical importance to the people. This particular issue hasn't reached that stage yet - if only because the available LEGAL remedies have not yet been exhausted.
This prohibition amendment that they ratified is really horrible! I know; if we want to get it repealed, we'll demonstrate the futility of it by not drinking. That'll get their attention!
I for one, in all my naive glory, believe that the system should be used in the manner in which it was intended to change laws that I don't agree with. What you're alluding to is that by breaking said law en mass (the "They can't arrest us all" mentality), somehow you're justified in the commision of the crime.
While this approach sometimes works, it's a maniuplation of the system that I don't support except in extreme cases. DoS'ing someone to show them that you don't like their intended legislation is just childish. Going back to your prohibition example, what it's closer to is "Hey, they want to outlaw drinking. I know, I won't drink - that'll show them."
People keep saying this, but unless the inside of your case was put together with airflow in mind, I don't see this happening.
I've noticed my computer is far cooler without the case than with.
Of course, there will be cases that don't flow well - whether due to the case design itself, the components inside the case, or other environmental variables.
Having had the opportunity to explore this phoenomenon in literally hundreds of different models of PCs, from homebuilt mammoths to large server class WinTel boxes to your standard off-the-shelf Dell/Compaq/IBM/etc boxes, I can say with some reasonable degree of certainty that having the case *on* provides better cooling in the *majority* of situations.
I'm not doubting your experiences, but your subset of data probably isn't representative of PCs as whole.
Slashdot Mirror
It's nothing like what you described.
iDVD is the authoring tool, the expensive front end to a cheap piece of hardware. If you do this crack, you've essentially "stolen" (I hate to use the word, because it means so many different things in different contexts) Apple's R&D. You've got a product which you didn't pay for that was developed at great expense for the purpose of selling Apple hardware and modified it to work on non-Apple hardware. You've circumvented Apple's methods for protecting their R&D investment.
For the machine? Yes. For the development of iDVD? No.
iDVD is a great FREE tool for CD authoring, better than many EXPENSIVE tools out there. Apple didn't write it just to be nice, they wrote it to sell DVD burners.
If you want to use Apple's software is worth using, it's worth compensating Apple for it's development. If you want to use a non-Apple DVD writer, that's fine - the OS will let you. Just grab one of the other award-winning, easy to use, and powerful DVD authoring apps out there that are free. Now, where did I see those...
The reason this is useful is that you have a larger bus bandwidth, not that it benefits any one particular device.
Having a faster bus, and more addressable devices will give SCSI some serious competition. Being able to effectively handle a larger number of devices, a RAID stripe of fast devices might actually be able to do something with this newfound bandwidth. Add in devices like CDRW, DVD-RW, etc, and you can see where the bus bandwidth can become a limiting factor.
For many users, however, even the current 33/66/100 ATA revisions are more than enough... when you're just pulling data from a single hard drive, the extra bandwidth means nothing.
Opening credits roll...
Flash of light, Samuel L. Jackson says "Hey, you..."
Closing credits roll...
and even if you can (or someone has) - the hardware is so outdated as to be pointless.
IANAMF (I Am Not A Mainframe Admin), but they're kind of sitting next to the big Unix servers. They're a completely different mindset when it comes to architecture, but remember that Unix (and the follow on hardware) came from mainframe guys, and while they wanted to improve on the design you usually start with what you know.
The big difference between server class hardware (mainframe or otherwise) and consumer class hardware is their ability to handle large amounts of data and transactions (more or less) simultaneously.
The major cost difference between desktop/consumer class hardware and server class hardware is engineering, not MHz, GBs, MIPS or any of the other numbers that people like to throw around when talking about WinTel vs. IBM/Sun/HP/etc. Try pushing millions of database records through your PC's IO bus, and then do the same with any of the big Unix boxes out there. You'll suddenly understand where those other $47k went.
This article is fatally flawed in a number of areas, but the fact remains that the *IS* a place for "real" servers over the hopped up desktops that a lot of people call Linux servers. For what it's worth (not much), I'm a professional sysadmin on the "big" boxes, and also run Linux servers personally so I see both sides.
I think the major issue here is what kinds of cases are managable by an intelligent, well informed layperson, and which are better left to professionals. My original point (which has been completely lost to those who want to take EVERY point to it's not so logical extreme) was that you do NOT have to be a lawyer (or law student) to effectively utilize the legal system, up to and including representing yourself against professional lawyers.
Lawyers certainly have their place... it's not however, as most of you would have us believe, a necessity to have your services to prevail in any legal context. In as much as the automotive oil industry would have us believe that changing our oil every 3000 miles is critical (which, BTW, sells a LOT more oil than is truly necessary), so too would the legal profession have us believe that we cannot manage our own legal affairs.
While not a lawyer myself (nor would I like to be), I do have significant experience in successfully managing legal affairs, lawsuits, etc without the benefit of law school, or even college for that matter. The resources are available for anyone to school themselves in procedure and nomenclature relating to legal matters.
Much of what makes a lawyer effective is *NOT* their knowledge of the legal system. Laws, technicalities, etc... that can all be dug up by a minimum-wage intern with access to a decent law library and the Internet. What makes a good lawyer effective is their communication skills and being able to articulate their position.
My argument was not that I am (or anyone else is, for that matter) an expert in law, physics, cryptography, biology, etc, but simply that this attitude that all things in the realm of law are exclusively in the domain of lawyers is ludicrous.
This is exactly the same attitude I refer to. Everyone seems to thing that they are the masters of their domain, and no one outside it could possibly be reasonably competent in it.To quote Mel Gibson, "Let's just say I'm agreeing with you in a totally unusual way."
I'm as anti-RIAA as the next guy, but I don't support guerilla tactics when alternative legal methods still exist. Your view of legal remedies is limited to letter writing campaigns? No wonder we can't change anything, when the populous writes a letter and then throws up their hands, saying that's all that's available.
Review my other reply elsewhere in this thread. You surely can't argue that the "right" to DoS someone who's supporting legislation that you disagree with is on par with the works of the extraordinary individuals you mentioned. To compare the "right" of the script kiddie to attack an entity with Ghandi, Rosa Parks, and MLK Jr. is to undermine and soil their legacies.
While this approach sometimes works, it's a maniuplation of the system that I don't support except in extreme cases. DoS'ing someone to show them that you don't like their intended legislation is just childish. Going back to your prohibition example, what it's closer to is "Hey, they want to outlaw drinking. I know, I won't drink - that'll show them."
The RIAA isn't allowed to, either. They're supporting legislation which would allow them to, but it's not currently legal.
The way to make a concinvincing case against legalizing a certain activity is NOT to commit that crime yourself.
My $.02.
Having had the opportunity to explore this phoenomenon in literally hundreds of different models of PCs, from homebuilt mammoths to large server class WinTel boxes to your standard off-the-shelf Dell/Compaq/IBM/etc boxes, I can say with some reasonable degree of certainty that having the case *on* provides better cooling in the *majority* of situations.
I'm not doubting your experiences, but your subset of data probably isn't representative of PCs as whole.