I think the GPL is better because it ensures that the code stays free. With BSD, someone could just take your code, use it in a closed app, and profit from your code, without the product being open source.
Per country, yes, it seems that Canada is the largest supplier, per country. However, The US also gets 19% (as compared to Canada's 18%) from the middle east, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
You're right, you can't have download to rent without DRM. There would be no way to ensure that you didn't watch it after downloading an unprotected source. Really, I don't see any reason why someone would pay to rent a downloadable movie. Playing it on your TV is a lot harder than sticking a DVD in a DVD player. The quality is worse than DVD. It takes longer to download than it does to go to the movie rental store. And that's without any problems encountered due to DRM and files not playing the way they are supposed to.
As far as buying movies through downloads, you definitely don't need DRM. The whole experience would be better without it. Just convert it to whatever format you like, or burn it to a DVD.
Sure there's some people that aren't idiots, but there's no process in place to make sure that the sales people aren't idiots. I applied to futureshop once. 70% of the questions were trying to figure out if you would steal from there. The was no questions on technical knowledge, not even in the interview. It wasn't designed to tell who was qualified and who wasn't.
This comes down to the question of just how open do you have to be. Some people say GPL isn't enough, because it restricts how you can redistribute the code, and only think that BSD like licenses are really open source. Seems to me like your employer was trying to do the right thing, but giving the source code to the people who bought the program, but didn't want to have the code available to everyone, just those who had paid for the product. It's just another level of open source. It may not be as open as GPL or BSD, but it's way more open than MS Windows, where you don't get any option to view or change the source at all. Even MS has stuff they tout as open source, called shared source, but that's about as least open as you get, while still getting to look at the code.
This robot is cheating by starting out at a standing position. Figuring out how to get from crawling or lying down to a standing position is probably the hardest part of walking, as any baby can tell you, Including my 9 month old girl.
But I and everybody else in my school learned WP 5.1, with some Dos based spreadsheet (ms works I think). Does this mean that my entire high school put out a bunch of people who couldn't operate MS Office? I don't think so. My school taught us the basic skills, and these are applicable to any word processor. People who learn how to use a tool, rather than follow a set of commands are able to adapt to different types of software. If they didn't teach you to use Pascal in your CompSCI degree, and then your boss comes up to you, and asks you to work on some pascal project, are you unable to cope? No, because hopefully you learned how to program, and the language is secondary. You could probably figure out the syntax and relevant libraries in about a week. I don't know anybody who has trouble using MS Word, just because they learned on some other word processor. They might be a little slow the first week on the job, but if they are smart people they know how to figure it out.
Often it's not the techies making the purchasing decisions, but rather some manager who has no idea what's really going on. If some manager hears that Oracle Linux is unbreakable, then they will jump right on and buy into it.
Except DRM isn't encryption, because the attacker and the receiver are the same person. You can't compare open encryption to open DRM, because Encryption assumes the key doesn't fall into the hands of the attacker. DRM relies on the fact that the attacker (user) has the key, but that it is obscured somehow. If you made an open source DRM program, it would be trivially easy to edit the program to output the key to a text file, or take the decrypted music and output it to a wav file instead of playing it over the speakers.
Graphic designers love PDF because they know it will look exactly the same on every computer. This is the reason the web (or at least HTML) is a graphic designers worst enemy. First of all, each browser will render the HTML differently, depending on quirks in the browser. Second, User settings will change the way a page looks. If I have Firefox show up to always show the address bar, and I see a pop-up, it's usually the wrong size, because the graphic designer thought my browser window would be a certain size. This also happens with extra toolbars. Also, dynamic web pages are even worse, because changing the data will probably affect how the page is shown, at least to some degree. Graphic designers cannot deal with this. Last is colours. Every computer I have ever seen shows colors slightly differently, such that stuff that looks perfectly find on one monitor, will look completely terrible on another. Colours that show up differently on one monitor will have no discernable difference on another.
However, once you starting needing a website that needs actual coding, you're probably better off with someone who is a great coder with a little bit of design knowledge, than with someone who is a great designer with a little bit of coding knowledge.
Some purists believe they can hear the difference between [un]compressed, lossless and lossy compression
How exactly do you tell the difference between lossless compression and uncompressed. The resulting waveform is the same. If you decompress a losslessly compressed file, you get the uncompressed file. There is no difference between lossless compression and no compression, except in the amount of space it takes up on the disc.
Unfortunately, we don't have solid state storage that doesn't fail either. I've had more RAM chips die than hard drives. And I know that you aren't suggesting that flash memory doesn't fail. Although I've never had flash memory fail, I've only ever used it for digicams and mp3 players, and not for the kind of usage pattern you would get from a hard drive.
If anything, RAID should make your hard disk access a lot faster. That is, unless you go for software RAID, which will put a hit on your processor. However, I think if you're going to make the investment to go with RAID 5, then buying a proper hardware controller won't add a significant amount to the cost of your set up.
I always worked faster on WP 5.1 than I do on those new word processors. You didn't spend time messing with fonts because you couldn't see the result anyway, and you didn't go back and correct spelling mistakes every sentence because they didn't underline them for you. You went back and corrected the mistakes afterwards, saving tons of time, and you didn't lose track of what you were typing. I think that as computers develop more and more features, we actually get less productive.
However, that's only if your enable/3GB switch in your boot.ini. Oh, and then if you want applications like SQL server that are PAE aware, don't expect them to turn that feature on automatically. Oh, but then SQL server 2000 takes all it's memory up at the beginning, so if you want it to have 7 GB, it's going to always have 7GB. I guess it's nice they fixed it in SQL Server 2005. I'm not too familiar with running enterprise Linux systems, but does Linux/Unix have all these crazy limitations and set up issues? What's involved in getting an opteron with 64 GB of RAM and using it for something like PostgreSQL? Is it as difficult as setting up SQL server to use memory above 2 GB?
Acutally I just checked, and it seems as thought I'm wrong, and that each player is supposed to have it's own key. However, I'm not sure how this works with software players, because each CD containing the players software would have to have a different key, which would make it impossible to press the CD by regular means.
Even assuming they could update the PS3 with a new key, the hardware hasn't changed, and it would probably be just as easy to discover the new key. They wouldn't be able to push updates to the PS3 every month when the key was broken.
I'm pretty sure that's not true. Each model is supposed to have a different key, otherwise, how do the discs contain the key of every player, even the ones that haven't been produced yet.
I think the graphics in Paper Mario are great. Viewtiful Joe also has pretty good graphics. Animal crossing isn't even 3D, unless you consider Zelda 1 or Zelda 3, to also be 3D. However, there's a lot of game companies that wouldn't produce a game like that simply because it's not 3D. There's a lot of companies that would rather put out some crappy 3D game, than put out some really good 2D game that only costs a quarter as much to make.
What if somebody hacked a Hardware player? Would they revoke that key? I imagine that although it would be harder, it would not be impossible to get the key out of a hardware player. Who knows, there's probably already some hardware player sitting out there that has the player key stored unencrypted in it's ROM. What happens if the PS3 player key is discovered. No way Sony would ever revoke that.
Security through obscurity means that you hide the way your security algorithm works in order to make it seem more secure than it is. Take a safe for instance. Security through obscurity would be trying to hide how the safe was designed, and trying to stop the thief from touching the safe in order to prevent them from breaking into it. A safe that doesn't rely on security through obscurity means that you could give the plans to the safe, to show how it's made, and all the mechanisms inside, as well as give him free access to the safe to try to do a bunch of things with it, and you would still be sure that he wouldn't break into the safe, short of using brute force. Common encryption algorithms like RSA are believed to be secure, even though everybody already knows how they work. The only way people know to break them, is to try all the keys. This is like trying every possible combination on a safe, in order to open it. Instead of safes which aren't really secure, that you can break just by listening to the tumblers with a stethescope.
Slashdot Mirror
Just Remember, Pacman always eats the bigger number. 100 > 1. 1 100.
I think the GPL is better because it ensures that the code stays free. With BSD, someone could just take your code, use it in a closed app, and profit from your code, without the product being open source.
Per country, yes, it seems that Canada is the largest supplier, per country. However, The US also gets 19% (as compared to Canada's 18%) from the middle east, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
You're right, you can't have download to rent without DRM. There would be no way to ensure that you didn't watch it after downloading an unprotected source. Really, I don't see any reason why someone would pay to rent a downloadable movie. Playing it on your TV is a lot harder than sticking a DVD in a DVD player. The quality is worse than DVD. It takes longer to download than it does to go to the movie rental store. And that's without any problems encountered due to DRM and files not playing the way they are supposed to.
As far as buying movies through downloads, you definitely don't need DRM. The whole experience would be better without it. Just convert it to whatever format you like, or burn it to a DVD.
Sure there's some people that aren't idiots, but there's no process in place to make sure that the sales people aren't idiots. I applied to futureshop once. 70% of the questions were trying to figure out if you would steal from there. The was no questions on technical knowledge, not even in the interview. It wasn't designed to tell who was qualified and who wasn't.
This comes down to the question of just how open do you have to be. Some people say GPL isn't enough, because it restricts how you can redistribute the code, and only think that BSD like licenses are really open source. Seems to me like your employer was trying to do the right thing, but giving the source code to the people who bought the program, but didn't want to have the code available to everyone, just those who had paid for the product. It's just another level of open source. It may not be as open as GPL or BSD, but it's way more open than MS Windows, where you don't get any option to view or change the source at all. Even MS has stuff they tout as open source, called shared source, but that's about as least open as you get, while still getting to look at the code.
This robot is cheating by starting out at a standing position. Figuring out how to get from crawling or lying down to a standing position is probably the hardest part of walking, as any baby can tell you, Including my 9 month old girl.
That is the best ad ever. I love that Ad. I love all those ads. I don't even own a Mac and I love those ads.
But I and everybody else in my school learned WP 5.1, with some Dos based spreadsheet (ms works I think). Does this mean that my entire high school put out a bunch of people who couldn't operate MS Office? I don't think so. My school taught us the basic skills, and these are applicable to any word processor. People who learn how to use a tool, rather than follow a set of commands are able to adapt to different types of software. If they didn't teach you to use Pascal in your CompSCI degree, and then your boss comes up to you, and asks you to work on some pascal project, are you unable to cope? No, because hopefully you learned how to program, and the language is secondary. You could probably figure out the syntax and relevant libraries in about a week. I don't know anybody who has trouble using MS Word, just because they learned on some other word processor. They might be a little slow the first week on the job, but if they are smart people they know how to figure it out.
Often it's not the techies making the purchasing decisions, but rather some manager who has no idea what's really going on. If some manager hears that Oracle Linux is unbreakable, then they will jump right on and buy into it.
Except DRM isn't encryption, because the attacker and the receiver are the same person. You can't compare open encryption to open DRM, because Encryption assumes the key doesn't fall into the hands of the attacker. DRM relies on the fact that the attacker (user) has the key, but that it is obscured somehow. If you made an open source DRM program, it would be trivially easy to edit the program to output the key to a text file, or take the decrypted music and output it to a wav file instead of playing it over the speakers.
Graphic designers love PDF because they know it will look exactly the same on every computer. This is the reason the web (or at least HTML) is a graphic designers worst enemy. First of all, each browser will render the HTML differently, depending on quirks in the browser. Second, User settings will change the way a page looks. If I have Firefox show up to always show the address bar, and I see a pop-up, it's usually the wrong size, because the graphic designer thought my browser window would be a certain size. This also happens with extra toolbars. Also, dynamic web pages are even worse, because changing the data will probably affect how the page is shown, at least to some degree. Graphic designers cannot deal with this. Last is colours. Every computer I have ever seen shows colors slightly differently, such that stuff that looks perfectly find on one monitor, will look completely terrible on another. Colours that show up differently on one monitor will have no discernable difference on another.
However, once you starting needing a website that needs actual coding, you're probably better off with someone who is a great coder with a little bit of design knowledge, than with someone who is a great designer with a little bit of coding knowledge.
Unfortunately, we don't have solid state storage that doesn't fail either. I've had more RAM chips die than hard drives. And I know that you aren't suggesting that flash memory doesn't fail. Although I've never had flash memory fail, I've only ever used it for digicams and mp3 players, and not for the kind of usage pattern you would get from a hard drive.
If anything, RAID should make your hard disk access a lot faster. That is, unless you go for software RAID, which will put a hit on your processor. However, I think if you're going to make the investment to go with RAID 5, then buying a proper hardware controller won't add a significant amount to the cost of your set up.
I always worked faster on WP 5.1 than I do on those new word processors. You didn't spend time messing with fonts because you couldn't see the result anyway, and you didn't go back and correct spelling mistakes every sentence because they didn't underline them for you. You went back and corrected the mistakes afterwards, saving tons of time, and you didn't lose track of what you were typing. I think that as computers develop more and more features, we actually get less productive.
He also stated that there was a 3GHz Desktop with 1Gig of ram that also ran like ass. Stop trolling.
However, that's only if your enable /3GB switch in your boot.ini. Oh, and then if you want applications like SQL server that are PAE aware, don't expect them to turn that feature on automatically. Oh, but then SQL server 2000 takes all it's memory up at the beginning, so if you want it to have 7 GB, it's going to always have 7GB. I guess it's nice they fixed it in SQL Server 2005. I'm not too familiar with running enterprise Linux systems, but does Linux/Unix have all these crazy limitations and set up issues? What's involved in getting an opteron with 64 GB of RAM and using it for something like PostgreSQL? Is it as difficult as setting up SQL server to use memory above 2 GB?
Acutally I just checked, and it seems as thought I'm wrong, and that each player is supposed to have it's own key. However, I'm not sure how this works with software players, because each CD containing the players software would have to have a different key, which would make it impossible to press the CD by regular means.
Even assuming they could update the PS3 with a new key, the hardware hasn't changed, and it would probably be just as easy to discover the new key. They wouldn't be able to push updates to the PS3 every month when the key was broken.
I'm pretty sure that's not true. Each model is supposed to have a different key, otherwise, how do the discs contain the key of every player, even the ones that haven't been produced yet.
I think the graphics in Paper Mario are great. Viewtiful Joe also has pretty good graphics. Animal crossing isn't even 3D, unless you consider Zelda 1 or Zelda 3, to also be 3D. However, there's a lot of game companies that wouldn't produce a game like that simply because it's not 3D. There's a lot of companies that would rather put out some crappy 3D game, than put out some really good 2D game that only costs a quarter as much to make.
What if somebody hacked a Hardware player? Would they revoke that key? I imagine that although it would be harder, it would not be impossible to get the key out of a hardware player. Who knows, there's probably already some hardware player sitting out there that has the player key stored unencrypted in it's ROM. What happens if the PS3 player key is discovered. No way Sony would ever revoke that.
Security through obscurity means that you hide the way your security algorithm works in order to make it seem more secure than it is. Take a safe for instance. Security through obscurity would be trying to hide how the safe was designed, and trying to stop the thief from touching the safe in order to prevent them from breaking into it. A safe that doesn't rely on security through obscurity means that you could give the plans to the safe, to show how it's made, and all the mechanisms inside, as well as give him free access to the safe to try to do a bunch of things with it, and you would still be sure that he wouldn't break into the safe, short of using brute force. Common encryption algorithms like RSA are believed to be secure, even though everybody already knows how they work. The only way people know to break them, is to try all the keys. This is like trying every possible combination on a safe, in order to open it. Instead of safes which aren't really secure, that you can break just by listening to the tumblers with a stethescope.