Hmmm... Sounds like the "interesting" SCA fighting styles that were around LONG before I was in high school in the early 80's. Only difference is that it is santioned through a national organization and didn't need a relatively lame movie for people to imitate.
That said I was really interested in the SCA until I actually learned how to fence, then the SCA wasn't interesting at all... Oh well, maybe I should have tried heavy weapons after all
Yes, there are hardware components to a DRM solution. You have to have them to make a usable solution.
That said - it is the media files that tell the computer what to do. If you create a media file that has no DRM restrictions - guess what, nothing happens. What it sounds like you resent is the owner of media content that you want creating a solution that you can't easily bypass by running a cracking tool. I am sorry, the owner of the content didn't want you to do that, or they wouldn't have put a restriction on it. Don't buy the media - get it through some other channel, or create your own.
I have very little sympathy for people that whine about wanting things that they don't own. If you want it, pay a fair price for it... If you don't own it - don't use it. It is only fair.
Think of DRM as a virtual bank vault. You want your bank vault to keep people from viewing (removing) your valuables. If there wasn't a hardware safe door, but mearly a chalk line on the ground that said "Please do not cross" - would you deposit your money at the bank?
Yeah - it sucks, but these media companies are spending upwards of 200M dollars to bankroll a single high budget movie. You think they will allow unlimited downloads on the first day of release if it could be easily shared by someone simply walking over a chalk line ? I don't think so. If I want to watch an day of release movie on my computer - I am willing to live by some restrictions, such as not being able to copy it, not being able to redistribute it, but still getting a good experience on my home theater system. Yeah that is what the owners of the content want. It sucks that there are people that go out of their way to distribute copyrighted works that they don't own (many times at a profit as well) and ruin it for all of us. Cause - yes, the design of this kind of system would be a LOT easier without all of the crappy DRM restrictions - but then no studio would ever release their content for the platform
Yes, I prefer when companies hide the sneaky things like they do and don't make me aware of the DRM'd content that THEY sell. At least with Intel you know that their premium content is DRM'd vs. Apple sneaking it into THEIR formats rather than just using the formats that the owners required.
Don't like DRM, just don't buy the media files - create them yourself. If you do want the premium content, buy the files and they work as advertised.
Yes, they follow the restrictions on the file, as I said - work as advertised.
DRM does not affect the sharing of any of YOUR media - what it affects is the media that you don't own full rights to. So if you take pictures, create music or movies - you can share them fully without any effort.
Now unfortunately - there are a bunch of dorks out there that wouldn't allow this kind of sharing (think RIAA/MPAA) so want restrictions put in place. If you create the file - you can control the DRM, if you get the file from "THEM" - they control what features get shared.
Unfortunately, companies like Apple (iPOD) and Intel (ViiV) have partially caved to the media companies so they can share their media.
Life sucks - but don't blame Intel or Apple for this silliness
Ok - silly question... Wasn't Netscape one of the most wildly successful companies coming out of the 90s. I mean they created about 5B in shareholder wealth in just a few years before giving it back to the shareholders in the shape of an aquisition with AOL.
Now they might have been able to grow larger - but they did set the natural price of a browser at 0, then complained when someone else matched their price. Once they lawyered up they started looking more like SCO than a tech company and fell out of relavance.
Can companies compete with microsoft long term. Sure it is easy - deliver what consumers want better than Microsoft can. Intuit has been doing it for years in direct competition with Microsoft Money. Don't see why any company that is willing to invest in a GOOD technology can't continue to compete (see Google without the decade of history succeeding) vs. companies that don't invest and move into irrelevance (see AMI Pro - who owns that word processor anymore, or Word Perfect - can you say 80%+ Market share?)
It wasn't Microsoft that dominated Word Perfect in the word processor game, it was Word Perfect that couldn't get out a generation of products and forced their users to switch to Word (yeah Word Perfect for Windows WAS that bad)
For that matter, look at Novell (what have they done since Netware 3.0) Borland (Anyone remember the Turbo compilers - but they couldn't write an optimizer to save their life)
It isn't Google that needs Net Nutrality - Frankly, they are too smart to care. Do you think they care if their site takes 2 or 3 seconds to load... Uh NO - they expect their customers to bitch to their local ISP anyway.
That said - who doesn't want net nutrality is the various high bandwidth low latency users of the internet. Think Video on Demand and Skype here. Their customers need the bandwidth guarantees, or their service "sucks". So it might be useful for a VoD provider to pay various large ISPs a fee to get their packets to the end customer with a higher priority.
Yes, you as an end user could probably demand that from the ISP too - but how would you negotiate something like that anyway? Much easier for the content provider to negotiate on behalf of their customers.
So now that we know who might NOT want Net Nutrality - and why the incumbant providers think that they want it... lets have a simple debate - should people be allowed to pay for a prioritized traffic through various sections of the internet. If you think that isn't all ready happening today - well, I've got a bridge to sell you too
Also it seem to me, that people aren't really more productive than people who just spend 9 hours per day. The excess time is usally spend in goofing around or creating problems, which will take time the next day to fix.
Very true. It is rather interesting that as you go from 40 - 45 hours a week, there are HUGE productivity gains (the 5 hours is all productive - vs. 15 of the first 40 hours are meetings, overhead, waste) so you see a huge 20% gain in productivity... Wow - if I get that with 5, what do I get with 10 or 20.
Well, what happens as you go from 45-60 hours a week, you start seeing bad effects with people spending more "Work" time doing their chores, longer lunches, dinner gets in there too... Then what happens that is even worse as you go through 60 hours to beyond is that preventable mistakes start happening. I am tired and make a mistake that takes days or weeks to debug and fix (even assuming it is caught and doesn't ship) and my ACTUAL productivity measured in debugged LOC/hr starts to plummet until sometime above 80-90 hours a week my productivity can actually become negative.
These are all longer term results - you CAN drive a developer for a week at 80 hours... but if you try for a month - look out for failure as his life starts to fall apart, health suffers, mistakes are made, and they leave for a better life somewhere else - with the mess in your lap.
By the way - I often wonder if this is the classic difference between young guns that CAN work longer hours for longer periods of times, and seasoned vetrans that don't seem to go over 60 hours, but are still effective (don't write as much code either - but what they write works better)
Uh - what command ecconomy. I am saying let the price of gas float to where it belongs unsubsidized (Europe pays in the range of 5-6 bucks a gallon plus taxes... what is the difference). Yes, your ticket will go up... But in reality probably a lot less than you think. First off - by packing more people into Mass Transit - it becomes more efficient (lets say 25% people ride the same routes than do today - nothing significantly increases except for revenue for the Bus). Also the choice is to raise the price of gas along with demand - or just have shortages. If you regulate the price of gas (No one can charge more than 2 dollars a gallon) then there is no incentive to create gasoline for more than 2 dollars (minus COGS, profit margin etc) and so supply stagnates. On the demand side - since the price stays static at 2 dollars, I have no incentive to save any gasoline...
Don't know about you. But Economics 101 taught me any time there is a price cap on a good - a shortage is guaranteed. I would like to see a counter example.
Or Move. If you are 100 miles away from work, driving it every day, MOVE... save every one time, money and gas.
That said - I am not refering to anything about OTR shipping, or things like that. Yes they will suffer and prices will go up. So what. Would you rather have that - or gas shortages where NO ONE can get the gas to drive
Again - a subtle difference. The game SHIPPED with the skin, it was just a matter of renaming the file. I have no problem with the ESRBs descision here... it was undisclosed content (it was on the distribution media). I would have a HUGE problem is someone completely reskinned a game, and based on content that the publisher has NO control over - the game was re-rated...
Just make gas cost $6 a gallon for everyone. You will find at that level EVERYONE will try to drive less (and many of them will succeed) reducing our use of petrolium products. Don't want to pay for gas - carpool, take the bus, bike, move, buy a better car. There are always alternatives, it is just that most of them are too costly with gas at $2 a gallon. Now that it is closer to $3 a gallon people are complaining - at $6 a gallon, many people will finally act.
I drive under 200 miles a week TOTAL - I could easily get that to seriously under 50 if I wanted to, and frankly with my Prius that 200 miles costs me $15 dollars... not all that much.
Lets see - they pay Firefox/Dell/etc.? $x for y% of the browser market. Now do we expect Google to pay Microsoft an equivatlent amount of money to put the Google search page as the default in IE.
Again - to be fair, it is obviously valuable to google (they are paying for a much smaller share of the market) why should Microsoft give this property away for free. Oh, and just for thinking about this - realize that spots during the Superbowl cost SIGNIFICANLY more than spots do during reruns of Doogie Howser MD.
How is determining the ISP that provides me a service a matter of civil liberties. There are many different ISPs out there. Some sell based on price, they are cheap and provide service that might be considered adiquate at best. Some sell based on their ability to provide customer support. And finally some sell based on services that they provide.
I am assuming that you know that picking the first ISP above will get you a great deal on Internet service (think 19.95 a month here) but might be lacking in some of the features that a service that charges 90 bucks a month is providing.
I am sick of these laws trying to argue what service models businesses provide. Would you like TVs that either a) Required a certain ammount of comercials, or b) required NO commercials. I am perfectly happy to live with ABC and PBS and will choose freely between the different business models. If my ISP can make some money by convincing some idiot company to pay it to provide bandwidth - I see no problem with them providing a cheaper solution to their customers. However - I might choose to use a more expensive ISP that doesn't subsidize its users with bills to content providers.
Here is the problem with Theo. He is smart and opinionated. Having these two things in common make him a very difficult person to get along with if you are either Smart, but hold a different opinion because you come from a different set of assumptions - but especially if you are NOT smart and opinionated.
I have had discussions with Theo about trying to get my current employer (at the time) to open up documentation so OpenBSD could write drivers for our hardware. Lets just say I failed (Sorry Theo - I really tried, to the point that my annual raise was affected by it). However I found Theo to be very supportive and personally agreeable to me - I assume he realized I was trying to help and doing the best I could.
I can imagine people that are fighting against things he is trying to do could see him in a negative light - but again... I see the same kinds of things said about all of the great ones.
Uhmmmm... It wasn't the government that announced the tax liability - it was SYMC itself that disclosed it in an SEC filing. Of course the government (rationally) forces companies to disclose material changes in their business. I would assume that a billion dollar tax liability is a material change.
Can you please show me where the Source MAC address exists in an IP packet that has been forwarded over the internet from (for example) the United States - to a server in Denmark?
Now that you look at your ethernet sniffs (I assume you just went running off and ran ethereal) look at the source ethernet address... Hmmmmm - doesn't that look familiar, like maybe it looks kinda like your first hop routers MAC address.
Nice try -
Thank you, Come Again
And please read either Stevens or Comer before posting on networking topics again
As soon as you need serious funding the VC will come in and as a condition of giving you said serious money - tell you who the CEO will be.
Seriously both of you lack the skills needed to be CEO - the job takes a Rolodex (that you don't have), experience (that you don't have), and the ability to create things like a coprate culture (that you probably don't know about).
For now, who ever wants to be replaced becomes the CEO - with the idea that both of you have your long time possitions filled out (COO/CFO for your friend, CTO/Head of Engineering for you). Frankly, if your company will require many more people and you need to recruit - you should probably pickup an HR type droid and make him CEO... boost his ego, make him useful for now, but set the expectation he will be the VP of HR when the real CEO shows up.
He was also lollygagging around. Frankly - if you are in shape 100 miles a day on a regular bassis isn't unheard of. Of course a lot of this depends on what you are riding/carrying. Records can be seen at RAAM and for the solo male - the time was 8 days 9 hours and 42 minutes.
I would be more concerned about the desert in the summer. As a friend of mine that has riden in race across america said - you measure milage in miles per gallon (of water) and the results are in the range of 4-5 miles/gallon.
Lets assume that Vista is as few as a 1000KLoc - (I'd bet another order of magnatude personally) That implies 600KLoc of new code written, tested debugged, etc. in 6 months. Uh - NO operating system development isn't that fast. I am not even sure I would buy the line that the current Vista codebase is 60% new/changed from XP (RTM - not SP2, patched to heck)
Not quite. WoW can also take money OUT of the economy. Lets see - many gold to train skills at each level, how much stuff was taken out of the economy to open the gates of AQ?. Then there are bird flights, repair, mounts to buy (1000 Gold for epic don't forget), even more rare weapons to construct (Someone in my guild was gathering 100 Aracanite bars, and some other rare stuff just to make a sword)
True those don't even begin to take as much gold out as gold is being put into the system - but it is wouldn't take Blizzard long if they wanted to drain gold out of the system, just give something REALLY cool and say it will cost you 10,000 Gold to make it/buy it/??? and poof watch the money escape
No - what I am saying is that the US should be HOLDING illegal combatants. There have been cases of attempting to get information out of these combatants in Guantanimo with varying succcess, there have been some well documented cases of irresponsible youth being left in charge of prisoners in Abu Ghrabi - and the people involved are being punished for what they did (Commanders being relieved, peons going to prison themselves).
Unfortunately for the people involved sitting in Guantanimo - they left themselves in a very precarious position. They are not claimed as combatants by any legitimate government - international treaties don't apply to them (how can they - they aren't representatives of their government), and they are being left to rot (What else can we do with them anyway - where could they be released to, especially with the "war" still active). Realize that even if they WERE enemy combatants - the only difference in their disposition is we wouldn't be having these stupid arguements, and the Red Cross could see them. They would still be rotting in various POW camps until the formal war was over and their government reclaimed them as a part of the negotiated peace treaty.
Slashdot Mirror
That said I was really interested in the SCA until I actually learned how to fence, then the SCA wasn't interesting at all... Oh well, maybe I should have tried heavy weapons after all
That said - it is the media files that tell the computer what to do. If you create a media file that has no DRM restrictions - guess what, nothing happens. What it sounds like you resent is the owner of media content that you want creating a solution that you can't easily bypass by running a cracking tool. I am sorry, the owner of the content didn't want you to do that, or they wouldn't have put a restriction on it. Don't buy the media - get it through some other channel, or create your own.
I have very little sympathy for people that whine about wanting things that they don't own. If you want it, pay a fair price for it... If you don't own it - don't use it. It is only fair.
Think of DRM as a virtual bank vault. You want your bank vault to keep people from viewing (removing) your valuables. If there wasn't a hardware safe door, but mearly a chalk line on the ground that said "Please do not cross" - would you deposit your money at the bank?
Yeah - it sucks, but these media companies are spending upwards of 200M dollars to bankroll a single high budget movie. You think they will allow unlimited downloads on the first day of release if it could be easily shared by someone simply walking over a chalk line ? I don't think so. If I want to watch an day of release movie on my computer - I am willing to live by some restrictions, such as not being able to copy it, not being able to redistribute it, but still getting a good experience on my home theater system. Yeah that is what the owners of the content want. It sucks that there are people that go out of their way to distribute copyrighted works that they don't own (many times at a profit as well) and ruin it for all of us. Cause - yes, the design of this kind of system would be a LOT easier without all of the crappy DRM restrictions - but then no studio would ever release their content for the platform
Don't like DRM, just don't buy the media files - create them yourself. If you do want the premium content, buy the files and they work as advertised.
Yes, they follow the restrictions on the file, as I said - work as advertised.
DRM does not affect the sharing of any of YOUR media - what it affects is the media that you don't own full rights to. So if you take pictures, create music or movies - you can share them fully without any effort.
Now unfortunately - there are a bunch of dorks out there that wouldn't allow this kind of sharing (think RIAA/MPAA) so want restrictions put in place. If you create the file - you can control the DRM, if you get the file from "THEM" - they control what features get shared.
Unfortunately, companies like Apple (iPOD) and Intel (ViiV) have partially caved to the media companies so they can share their media.
Life sucks - but don't blame Intel or Apple for this silliness
Now they might have been able to grow larger - but they did set the natural price of a browser at 0, then complained when someone else matched their price. Once they lawyered up they started looking more like SCO than a tech company and fell out of relavance.
Can companies compete with microsoft long term. Sure it is easy - deliver what consumers want better than Microsoft can. Intuit has been doing it for years in direct competition with Microsoft Money. Don't see why any company that is willing to invest in a GOOD technology can't continue to compete (see Google without the decade of history succeeding) vs. companies that don't invest and move into irrelevance (see AMI Pro - who owns that word processor anymore, or Word Perfect - can you say 80%+ Market share?)
It wasn't Microsoft that dominated Word Perfect in the word processor game, it was Word Perfect that couldn't get out a generation of products and forced their users to switch to Word (yeah Word Perfect for Windows WAS that bad)
For that matter, look at Novell (what have they done since Netware 3.0) Borland (Anyone remember the Turbo compilers - but they couldn't write an optimizer to save their life)
Good luck on this. I expect this won't be an easy chore. I hope you have LEET soldering skills - you will need them
That said - who doesn't want net nutrality is the various high bandwidth low latency users of the internet. Think Video on Demand and Skype here. Their customers need the bandwidth guarantees, or their service "sucks". So it might be useful for a VoD provider to pay various large ISPs a fee to get their packets to the end customer with a higher priority.
Yes, you as an end user could probably demand that from the ISP too - but how would you negotiate something like that anyway? Much easier for the content provider to negotiate on behalf of their customers.
So now that we know who might NOT want Net Nutrality - and why the incumbant providers think that they want it... lets have a simple debate - should people be allowed to pay for a prioritized traffic through various sections of the internet. If you think that isn't all ready happening today - well, I've got a bridge to sell you too
Very true. It is rather interesting that as you go from 40 - 45 hours a week, there are HUGE productivity gains (the 5 hours is all productive - vs. 15 of the first 40 hours are meetings, overhead, waste) so you see a huge 20% gain in productivity... Wow - if I get that with 5, what do I get with 10 or 20.
Well, what happens as you go from 45-60 hours a week, you start seeing bad effects with people spending more "Work" time doing their chores, longer lunches, dinner gets in there too... Then what happens that is even worse as you go through 60 hours to beyond is that preventable mistakes start happening. I am tired and make a mistake that takes days or weeks to debug and fix (even assuming it is caught and doesn't ship) and my ACTUAL productivity measured in debugged LOC/hr starts to plummet until sometime above 80-90 hours a week my productivity can actually become negative.
These are all longer term results - you CAN drive a developer for a week at 80 hours... but if you try for a month - look out for failure as his life starts to fall apart, health suffers, mistakes are made, and they leave for a better life somewhere else - with the mess in your lap.
By the way - I often wonder if this is the classic difference between young guns that CAN work longer hours for longer periods of times, and seasoned vetrans that don't seem to go over 60 hours, but are still effective (don't write as much code either - but what they write works better)
Don't know about you. But Economics 101 taught me any time there is a price cap on a good - a shortage is guaranteed. I would like to see a counter example.
That said - I am not refering to anything about OTR shipping, or things like that. Yes they will suffer and prices will go up. So what. Would you rather have that - or gas shortages where NO ONE can get the gas to drive
Again - a subtle difference. The game SHIPPED with the skin, it was just a matter of renaming the file. I have no problem with the ESRBs descision here... it was undisclosed content (it was on the distribution media). I would have a HUGE problem is someone completely reskinned a game, and based on content that the publisher has NO control over - the game was re-rated...
I drive under 200 miles a week TOTAL - I could easily get that to seriously under 50 if I wanted to, and frankly with my Prius that 200 miles costs me $15 dollars... not all that much.
Hmmm +1 Funny, or +1 Insightfull, or -1 Troll
So many moderations, so few mod points
Again - to be fair, it is obviously valuable to google (they are paying for a much smaller share of the market) why should Microsoft give this property away for free. Oh, and just for thinking about this - realize that spots during the Superbowl cost SIGNIFICANLY more than spots do during reruns of Doogie Howser MD.
I am assuming that you know that picking the first ISP above will get you a great deal on Internet service (think 19.95 a month here) but might be lacking in some of the features that a service that charges 90 bucks a month is providing.
I am sick of these laws trying to argue what service models businesses provide. Would you like TVs that either a) Required a certain ammount of comercials, or b) required NO commercials. I am perfectly happy to live with ABC and PBS and will choose freely between the different business models. If my ISP can make some money by convincing some idiot company to pay it to provide bandwidth - I see no problem with them providing a cheaper solution to their customers. However - I might choose to use a more expensive ISP that doesn't subsidize its users with bills to content providers.
YMMV
I have had discussions with Theo about trying to get my current employer (at the time) to open up documentation so OpenBSD could write drivers for our hardware. Lets just say I failed (Sorry Theo - I really tried, to the point that my annual raise was affected by it). However I found Theo to be very supportive and personally agreeable to me - I assume he realized I was trying to help and doing the best I could.
I can imagine people that are fighting against things he is trying to do could see him in a negative light - but again... I see the same kinds of things said about all of the great ones.
Wait - this ISN'T an april fools joke?
Uhmmmm... It wasn't the government that announced the tax liability - it was SYMC itself that disclosed it in an SEC filing. Of course the government (rationally) forces companies to disclose material changes in their business. I would assume that a billion dollar tax liability is a material change.
Now that you look at your ethernet sniffs (I assume you just went running off and ran ethereal) look at the source ethernet address... Hmmmmm - doesn't that look familiar, like maybe it looks kinda like your first hop routers MAC address.
Nice try -
Thank you, Come Again
And please read either Stevens or Comer before posting on networking topics again
Seriously both of you lack the skills needed to be CEO - the job takes a Rolodex (that you don't have), experience (that you don't have), and the ability to create things like a coprate culture (that you probably don't know about).
For now, who ever wants to be replaced becomes the CEO - with the idea that both of you have your long time possitions filled out (COO/CFO for your friend, CTO/Head of Engineering for you). Frankly, if your company will require many more people and you need to recruit - you should probably pickup an HR type droid and make him CEO... boost his ego, make him useful for now, but set the expectation he will be the VP of HR when the real CEO shows up.
I would be more concerned about the desert in the summer. As a friend of mine that has riden in race across america said - you measure milage in miles per gallon (of water) and the results are in the range of 4-5 miles/gallon.
Lets assume that Vista is as few as a 1000KLoc - (I'd bet another order of magnatude personally) That implies 600KLoc of new code written, tested debugged, etc. in 6 months. Uh - NO operating system development isn't that fast. I am not even sure I would buy the line that the current Vista codebase is 60% new/changed from XP (RTM - not SP2, patched to heck)
True those don't even begin to take as much gold out as gold is being put into the system - but it is wouldn't take Blizzard long if they wanted to drain gold out of the system, just give something REALLY cool and say it will cost you 10,000 Gold to make it/buy it/??? and poof watch the money escape
Unfortunately for the people involved sitting in Guantanimo - they left themselves in a very precarious position. They are not claimed as combatants by any legitimate government - international treaties don't apply to them (how can they - they aren't representatives of their government), and they are being left to rot (What else can we do with them anyway - where could they be released to, especially with the "war" still active). Realize that even if they WERE enemy combatants - the only difference in their disposition is we wouldn't be having these stupid arguements, and the Red Cross could see them. They would still be rotting in various POW camps until the formal war was over and their government reclaimed them as a part of the negotiated peace treaty.