If you have problems selling your solution, sit down and make some calculations on the monetary effects of reduced bandwidth and server hardware costs:)
It's as if Sony Music wants Sony Electronics to stop making devices that are obviously designed solely to pirate their copyrighted works.
No "as if" there - what you mention has actually happened. Saw an interview in wired a long time ago, with Sony's head honcho of "portable music devices" or somesuch. Couldn't find the original interview, but the point was that Sony Music actually denied Sony Electronics to make hard-disk based MP3 players for fear of piracy.
(so ok, you shouldn't take everything in wired for granted, but the fact that Sony didn't make any HD-based MP3-players a long time ago is a strong indication as well...)
Whilst people seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against "Trusted Computing", I think there is one crucial issue that actually determines wether or not it's a Good Idea(tm). And that is: Who holds the master keys to my computer?
Point being that hardware level security features can be a great boon, as long as I decide what to trust and what not to trust.
Ofcourse, that's pretty guaranteed not what MS wants to push, but still - when discussing "Trusted" architectures in general, I think it's a valid point. It could for instance enable me to say that I trust the FSF's list of trustworthy applications - and viruses and other malware would actually be physically unable to run on my workbox. How could that be wrong?
Another issue I've thought about is - how can anyone be so sure it won't be cracked? People seem to be tinking that hardware enabled "security" (DRM, whatever) will finally give watertight security. Yet, to my knowledge, both PlayStations and XBOX'es has tried that trick - to no avail. (In the sense that those wanting to subvert the protection mechanisms seems perfectly able to do so).
Ohwell, just my thoughts atleast. If I have misunderstood anything, feel free to correct me:)
My favourite C++ introduction book
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I just had to read up on C++. I'm no expert programmer, but having experience from C and Java (in addition to having learnt the basics of Object-Oriented methodology) I wanted a book that didn't try too hard to explain everything from the bottom.
I found C++: The core language from O'Reilly incredibly useful in this respect. In its 200 pages, it might not cover every aspect of C++, but it will give you enough to go on so that you can start using the language. Being short and focused, it will give you a good understanding of the basics a lot faster than any larger book could, IMHO.
Maybe. My initial thought was that Lucas probably wants to create some buzz around the StarWars universe again, before releasing EP3.
(It has been a while since EP2, and whilst it did good at the Box Office (or so I believe - to lazy to check my facts...:) ), but he might have picked up on the fans not really digging it.)
Sure it's illegal to drive at 150mph (most of the time, anyways). And that is perfectly sensible. But it is, and should be, legal to have a car capable of it.
And it is illegal to shoplift as well it should be. But it's legal to have pockets you could use for shoplifting.
And I think it should be legal to hack your modem as you see fit. That does NOT necessarily mean you should be allowed to remove caps on it.
My main beef is that most businesses decide to fight the hacking itself, not the illegal/imoral/not-allowed-by-our-agreement uses of that hacking. This is has proved pretty ineffective at stopping abuses, and it does seem to create a lot of collateral damage. (Ref the whole DeCSS saga, DMCA etc.)
(I realise I was a bit unclear on that in my first post - sorry)
Not really sure about the technicalities of cable-modem capping either.
However, I don't understand how so many businesses can actually base their plans on digital boxes being "tamperproof". To my knowledge, nobody has EVER successfully made anything digital tamperproof. DVD players, XBOX'es, Cable modems, Play Stations, all have been hacked. So why on earth do they keep trying?
Sure, it can make for some very tempting business models, but COME ON. It's like building your house on an erodable ledge by the sea, and then whine about it when your property goes bye-bye into the big blue.
Of course, as politicians seems to think such behaviour perfectly reasonable, and even write laws to support it, its never going to go away.:/
"IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability," Ballmer wrote.
So, backing from a huge corporation only gives an illusion of support and accountability, by Ballmers own admission? Something to keep in mind next time "corporate backing" is flounted as a Windows highlight:)
I do think you have some valid points, but I have a few objections none the less.
The way of using a rotating device (or an emulation of something rotating) to serve as input is not exactly new (example: JOG-wheels on VCR'S).
And in addition, the "touch-zone" way it is done, is not exactly new either. I have a very old (perhaps 10-20 yrs) Bang&Olufsen casette deck wich has an identical "no-buttons" interface. (it does not have slide-zones though, but that laptop mousepads are an example of those).
The only possibly novel thing is the sum of it all, as done on the IPod. I don't really se how that should warrant a patent.
IANAL, but I would assume their design will fall under copyright (or maybe it's trademark), and that is all the legal protection I think the scroll-wheel deserves. Apple could then sue somebody for making a "confusingly similar" MP3-player, but they shouldn't be able to ban competitors from utilising the "buttonless" design.
And they will bring DOOOM TO US ALL!!!
Interesting enough then, that Activision, the one megacorp that would actually be thanked for bringing us Doom (well... Doom 3 anyways), seems unable to do so.
Their cheapest model weighs in at about $50, and it has an "out of zone"-alarm for the heartrate. (I'm not a Polar salesrep, it's just the only HRM manufacturing company I know of)
AFAIK the Norwegian "age of legal majority" or what it's called - the age where you can be held responsible for your actions by a court of law - is 14 years. But there may be some restrictions as to what sort of punishment you can get. I don't think you'll get incarcerated in a regular prison at that age. But still - I don't think that Jon's age was any reason for delaying the trial.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have problems selling your solution, sit down and make some calculations on the monetary effects of reduced bandwidth and server hardware costs :)
No "as if" there - what you mention has actually happened. Saw an interview in wired a long time ago, with Sony's head honcho of "portable music devices" or somesuch. Couldn't find the original interview, but the point was that Sony Music actually denied Sony Electronics to make hard-disk based MP3 players for fear of piracy.
It's mentioned in the second paragraph of this story: Note to Sony: Skip iPod Knockoff
(so ok, you shouldn't take everything in wired for granted, but the fact that Sony didn't make any HD-based MP3-players a long time ago is a strong indication as well...)
Whilst people seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against "Trusted Computing", I think there is one crucial issue that actually determines wether or not it's a Good Idea(tm). And that is: Who holds the master keys to my computer?
Point being that hardware level security features can be a great boon, as long as I decide what to trust and what not to trust.
Ofcourse, that's pretty guaranteed not what MS wants to push, but still - when discussing "Trusted" architectures in general, I think it's a valid point. It could for instance enable me to say that I trust the FSF's list of trustworthy applications - and viruses and other malware would actually be physically unable to run on my workbox. How could that be wrong?
Another issue I've thought about is - how can anyone be so sure it won't be cracked? People seem to be tinking that hardware enabled "security" (DRM, whatever) will finally give watertight security. Yet, to my knowledge, both PlayStations and XBOX'es has tried that trick - to no avail. (In the sense that those wanting to subvert the protection mechanisms seems perfectly able to do so).
Ohwell, just my thoughts atleast. If I have misunderstood anything, feel free to correct me :)
I just had to read up on C++. I'm no expert programmer, but having experience from C and Java (in addition to having learnt the basics of Object-Oriented methodology) I wanted a book that didn't try too hard to explain everything from the bottom.
I found C++: The core language from O'Reilly incredibly useful in this respect. In its 200 pages, it might not cover every aspect of C++, but it will give you enough to go on so that you can start using the language. Being short and focused, it will give you a good understanding of the basics a lot faster than any larger book could, IMHO.
Maybe. My initial thought was that Lucas probably wants to create some buzz around the StarWars universe again, before releasing EP3.
(It has been a while since EP2, and whilst it did good at the Box Office (or so I believe - to lazy to check my facts... :) ), but he might have picked up on the fans not really digging it.)
Sure it's illegal to drive at 150mph (most of the time, anyways). And that is perfectly sensible. But it is, and should be, legal to have a car capable of it.
And it is illegal to shoplift as well it should be. But it's legal to have pockets you could use for shoplifting.
And I think it should be legal to hack your modem as you see fit. That does NOT necessarily mean you should be allowed to remove caps on it.
My main beef is that most businesses decide to fight the hacking itself, not the illegal/imoral/not-allowed-by-our-agreement uses of that hacking. This is has proved pretty ineffective at stopping abuses, and it does seem to create a lot of collateral damage. (Ref the whole DeCSS saga, DMCA etc.)
(I realise I was a bit unclear on that in my first post - sorry)Not really sure about the technicalities of cable-modem capping either.
However, I don't understand how so many businesses can actually base their plans on digital boxes being "tamperproof". To my knowledge, nobody has EVER successfully made anything digital tamperproof. DVD players, XBOX'es, Cable modems, Play Stations, all have been hacked. So why on earth do they keep trying?
Sure, it can make for some very tempting business models, but COME ON. It's like building your house on an erodable ledge by the sea, and then whine about it when your property goes bye-bye into the big blue.
Of course, as politicians seems to think such behaviour perfectly reasonable, and even write laws to support it, its never going to go away. :/
"IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability," Ballmer wrote.
So, backing from a huge corporation only gives an illusion of support and accountability, by Ballmers own admission? Something to keep in mind next time "corporate backing" is flounted as a Windows highlight :)
I do think you have some valid points, but I have a few objections none the less.
The way of using a rotating device (or an emulation of something rotating) to serve as input is not exactly new (example: JOG-wheels on VCR'S).
And in addition, the "touch-zone" way it is done, is not exactly new either. I have a very old (perhaps 10-20 yrs) Bang&Olufsen casette deck wich has an identical "no-buttons" interface. (it does not have slide-zones though, but that laptop mousepads are an example of those).
The only possibly novel thing is the sum of it all, as done on the IPod. I don't really se how that should warrant a patent.
IANAL, but I would assume their design will fall under copyright (or maybe it's trademark), and that is all the legal protection I think the scroll-wheel deserves. Apple could then sue somebody for making a "confusingly similar" MP3-player, but they shouldn't be able to ban competitors from utilising the "buttonless" design.
And they will bring DOOOM TO US ALL!!!
Interesting enough then, that Activision, the one megacorp that would actually be thanked for bringing us Doom (well... Doom 3 anyways), seems unable to do so.
Check out Polar watches.
Their cheapest model weighs in at about $50, and it has an "out of zone"-alarm for the heartrate. (I'm not a Polar salesrep, it's just the only HRM manufacturing company I know of)
...cause my exam in Algorithm Construction is only two days away, and I _really_ could use some extra time =)
AFAIK the Norwegian "age of legal majority" or what it's called - the age where you can be held responsible for your actions by a court of law - is 14 years. But there may be some restrictions as to what sort of punishment you can get. I don't think you'll get incarcerated in a regular prison at that age. But still - I don't think that Jon's age was any reason for delaying the trial.