I was asking the question, but they wouldn't sell
chips to me!
I always thought that it was a strange business model to develop something pretty cool and then lock it up and sell it only to restricted developers. Surely they should have set the price based on demand and how many of the suckers they could actually make.
I don't understand how legislators even think that this might work! Who is advising these guys?
If every component of the computer is required to have a censor chip in it, then there is no chance. Manufacturers have a hard enough time complying with useful standards like ISA and PnP. There will always be manufacturers who don't comply and people will go buy their stuff.
Alternatively, if the CPU implements something to detect copy-protected content, then we'll just find new ways to process that content. There is no way that a general purpose CPU can be prevented from performing a particular task (given that the task can be coded in an infinite number of ways).
Prohibition didn't work in the past and it won't work now.
The attack on the USA just goes to show that inequalities caused by
the US government breed violence. It is unreasonable to treat large
numbers of people unfairly and expect them just to lie down and take
it. Eventually they will reach a point where their lives are worth
little and they have no prospects. Then they will become violent.
This is not the first time either. Anyone remember the LA riots or
the attack on the USS Cole? I could go on.
The US has a long history of inequality. At home, hospitals and
schools are more and more for the rich and we can just build fences to
keep the poor in their ghettos right? Pay more for the rent-a-cop
sitting at the border between the nice plush suburbs and the rest of
the world. But no f**king way the rich will pay more taxes so the poor
don't want to steal all their stuff!
And then of course, there is the USA on the international stage. You
can't go round bombing countries everywhere and not make emenies. It
only takes a few of them to hijack planes and... Not to mention some
of them smuggling suitcase nukes into the USA. Also, the
unquestioning support of Israel despite the atrocities (on both sides)
will only lead to religious fanatics as enemies.
So what does the US do now? Nuke them till they glow?
In the short term, yes, I'm all for the elimination of terrorists.
But in the long term it's time that the people of the USA to realise
that inequality must be reduced. Spend less on defence and more on
health, education and welfare. Choose a sane international policy,
stop acting like an international bully.
Stand up and be counted. Vote. Above all, don't elect another total
moron like George W. Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
I always thought that it was a strange business model to develop something pretty cool and then lock it up and sell it only to restricted developers. Surely they should have set the price based on demand and how many of the suckers they could actually make.
Oh well, another .bomb in the making
Payed is not a word (in English at least).
If every component of the computer is required to have a censor chip in it, then there is no chance. Manufacturers have a hard enough time complying with useful standards like ISA and PnP. There will always be manufacturers who don't comply and people will go buy their stuff.
Alternatively, if the CPU implements something to detect copy-protected content, then we'll just find new ways to process that content. There is no way that a general purpose CPU can be prevented from performing a particular task (given that the task can be coded in an infinite number of ways).
Prohibition didn't work in the past and it won't work now.
"as an American living in the Uk", it'd be nice if you could write English!
I wonder what their rationale was.
Please! That's not news.
The perpetrators may not be considered rational by many and should be punished. But you can see some chain of logic that drives them to it.
The attack on the USA just goes to show that inequalities caused by
... Not to mention some
the US government breed violence. It is unreasonable to treat large
numbers of people unfairly and expect them just to lie down and take
it. Eventually they will reach a point where their lives are worth
little and they have no prospects. Then they will become violent.
This is not the first time either. Anyone remember the LA riots or
the attack on the USS Cole? I could go on.
The US has a long history of inequality. At home, hospitals and
schools are more and more for the rich and we can just build fences to
keep the poor in their ghettos right? Pay more for the rent-a-cop
sitting at the border between the nice plush suburbs and the rest of
the world. But no f**king way the rich will pay more taxes so the poor
don't want to steal all their stuff!
And then of course, there is the USA on the international stage. You
can't go round bombing countries everywhere and not make emenies. It
only takes a few of them to hijack planes and
of them smuggling suitcase nukes into the USA. Also, the
unquestioning support of Israel despite the atrocities (on both sides)
will only lead to religious fanatics as enemies.
So what does the US do now? Nuke them till they glow?
In the short term, yes, I'm all for the elimination of terrorists.
But in the long term it's time that the people of the USA to realise
that inequality must be reduced. Spend less on defence and more on
health, education and welfare. Choose a sane international policy,
stop acting like an international bully.
Stand up and be counted. Vote. Above all, don't elect another total
moron like George W. Bush.