Can this be fixed by revoking a player key? Or is this a more extensive breach like what happened with DECSS? Will this work on all future discs, or does it just work on the discs that are currently being produced?
I think that game makers think that every game has to be beautiful 3D, but that the customers don't really care. They just want a game that's fun to play. Games like Paper Mario, Viewtiful Joe, and Animal Crossing (not 2D, but graphics don't matter) are very popular. I don't think that the gamers care as much as the Execs that approve which games get made believe they care.
I probably know just as many people who download tons of music/movies and never buy a single thing. I think that things go both ways, and that some people do buy more because of file sharing, but don't pretend that there isn't a lot of people taking a free ride, downloading everything and buying nothing.
However, I know people that have never bought a CD in their life, have 8000 songs, and spend over 3 hours a day listening to music? These are people who make more than enough albums to buy a couple albums a month. Are the artists that then listen to getting hurt by them not buying the album. You can argue that well, they weren't going to buy it anyway, but then what would they be listening to? If people spend that much time listening to music, then they should be buying at least some of it. 15 years ago, if you look at someone who like to listen to music, you wouldn't often find anybody who only had tapes they had dubbed off their friends. However, with internet file sharing, there's a lot of people who have never purchased a CD, and who are listening to tons of music. Had they been unable to pirate it, I'm sure they would have bought some, but with the ease of internet file sharing, I'm seeing a lot of people who would be purchasing music purchase none at all.
A little analogy to help this along. I've met a lot of Americans who say that they like Nickelback. Most people from Canada can't stand Nickelback. And do you know why? Well, Canadian content laws say that a certain percentage of music on the radio has to be from Canadian artists. So, because Nickleback is Canadian, and they are popular, you hear them about once an hour. They get way overplayed, and people stop wanting to listen to it. Even if Nickleback was replace with (insert best band ever), it wouldn't matter, because people would still get tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. I don't think the radio has ever been that good, but once file sharing came along as a way to find new music, the radio lost 98% of any appeal it had.
If you're doing any kind of business over the internet, even just hosting a site, wouldn't it be wise to just spend the extra $3.95 (price from my shared hosting provider) for the dedicated IP address? If you're really worried about some IP getting blocked, then I don't think $4 is really going to take a big bite out of your budget.
I now recall we used to want this for sports games. After hitting your 700th homerun, watching the homerun sequence becomes pretty boring, it would be nice if you could just skip it and get on with the game.
We used to joke that there should be a skip-the-shit button on most of the games. There's a lot of games where they make you sit through videos or storyline that doesn't really have anything to do with the game. A lot of time they are just trying to push a story into a game that doesn't really need a story, or the story is so bad, that nobody wants to listen.
How come Europe has so much better public transit then? What is so different about Europe that makes it possible to have good public transit? The only difference is that they are committed to building a good public transportation system. Cities that make the effort to have good public transit can do it. It's not impossible, it's just that most cities never made the effort. Mind you, there are a lot of cities that are too messed up now, and making changes would be more costly than just staying with the status quo, but they should have changed things long ago. I think it's good that you are willing to make changes in your life to cut down on global warming. My problem is with those who refuse to do anything that might inconvenience them in the slightest way.
I'm not so sure about this. I know a lot of people buying Macs lately. It is taking a while to catch on, but give them 5 years, and I think you'll start to see apple get a much higher market share, at least in the home computer front. Businesses may take longer to switch over due to needs for legacy applications.
I'm not really saying that not driving at all is going to work for everyone, but the attitude of some people with cars is that they have to drive everywhere, even when it's actually easier to walk or take the bus. People will drive to the store when it's only a 5 minute walk away and they spend more time waiting for their car to warm up. People will drive around for 10 minutes looking for the perfect parking spot just so they don't have to walk 3 blocks. Sometimes it really is faster, or at least less stressful to take public transit or walk, and a lot of people don't.
And public transit is as good as your city wants to make it. I'll agree that it helps to be in a large city, but there are plenty of large cities , LA for example, where public transit is worse than even in small towns. A lot of it depends on how much your local government really cares about having a good public transit system.
But most of the solutions are quite out of reach unless the environment has been destroyed and we have no other choice. Telling people that we can just terraform the earth is a bad thing, because it gives them the wrong impression that it's OK if they mess with the environment because science will just fix it. In the end, I think people are better off with cutting down on emissions, and even saving themselves a few bucks rather than destroying the environment and then spending trillions of dollars to fix the problem.
This kind of crap just amazes me. People think up trillion dollar plans like putting up million of tiny umbrellas into geosynchronous orbit to deflect sunlight, but we can't get people to just not drive SUVs, or even go so low as to take the bus, or even walk to the store which is only a block away. I've never owned a car, and I'm really not convinced that I ever want to. There's only a couple instance where I would really want a car, like picking up groceries, but they have a delivery service anyway, for when I want a lot of groceries. Going away for the weekend isn't too much of a problem. Renting a car for 1 weekend a month costs less than most people's insurance.
But it's not the retailers who are supposed to pay the levies. It's the manufacturers or importers. I don't even think there are any manufacturers of CDRs in Canada, so we can assume they aren't coming from that route. I find it hard to believe that there are black market importers for something as cheap as CDRs. Even with the levy, the prices at futureshop et al are pretty low. I couldn't imagine someone wanting to take a risk on illegally importing something with such low profit margins to begin with.
I still fail to see where the tariff is being collected. You can currently buy a spindle of 100 CDRs for $21.98. According to the site you linked to the tariff on regular, non-audio, CDRs, is $0.21. The CDRs cost less than $0.22 each, and they are being charged a tariff of $0.21 cents. I'm sorry, but i'll have to take the Chewbacca defence on that one, because that makes no sense. You can't seriously tell me that they are selling CDRs for less than 1 cent a piece retail. And this isn't buying CDs out of a garage, it's a store that's been open for quite a while.
But in the end, a lot of the stuff that may take advantage from parallel programming, may or may end up good in practice. Take for instance a database system. If you did a bunch of stuff in parallel algorithms then you basically add a bunch of overhead in the form of distribution and gathering, and extra threads or processes. If you leave it as sequential, then you cut down on the overhead, and leave the other CPUs or cores free for other queries coming into the database. I don't work with parallel programming enough to know the answer, but would you really get better performance than the sequential algorithm? Even when you have to processes multiple requests at once, and 1 request is using all the cores? I remember that it was possible to sort N elements in O(log (n)), but only if you had n processors. So on 1 processor, it ends up taking O(n log (n)), which is the same as a serial sorting algorithm (related article. Usually you have 1 or 2 cores, maybe 4, or something really large like 64 or 128, but if you're sorting billions of elements, then you're very close to something that's only as efficient as the serial algorithm, plus a bunch of overheard. If you have 128 cores, you're probably better off serving 128 requests with serial algorithms, each with it's own core, then trying to run them as parallel processes 1 after the other.
I wrote some parellel code using MPI in university. It takes a lot of work to get the hang of at first, and many people who I know that were good at programming had lots of trouble in this course, because programming for parallelism is very different than programming for a single processor. On the other hand, you can get much better performance from parallel algorithms. However, I think that we could do just as well sticking with the regular algorithms, and having a lot of threads each running on a different core. If you look at an RDBMS, it would be nice if you could sort in less than n log(n) time, but it's even better if you just sort in n log (n), but can run 128 sorts simultaneously. I seem to remember some news about Intel saying they would have 128 core chips available in the near future.
However, there are too many perfectly healthy women who are on the pill who shouldn't be, and who would probably just be a lot better off abstaining from sex or getting the guy to wear a condom. It messes with your body too much, and I think too many women go on the pill when it would just be easier to use some other method.
Lets just hope you never want to have kids. Even with regular birth control, some women have to wait over a year for their body to get back into sync and they start to be fertile again. I would have to think that this would be even worse. It messes with your body quite a bit. I guess you've never heard much from women who can't take the pill because it makes them fell really sick, like being pregnant all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Can this be fixed by revoking a player key? Or is this a more extensive breach like what happened with DECSS? Will this work on all future discs, or does it just work on the discs that are currently being produced?
I think that game makers think that every game has to be beautiful 3D, but that the customers don't really care. They just want a game that's fun to play. Games like Paper Mario, Viewtiful Joe, and Animal Crossing (not 2D, but graphics don't matter) are very popular. I don't think that the gamers care as much as the Execs that approve which games get made believe they care.
I probably know just as many people who download tons of music/movies and never buy a single thing. I think that things go both ways, and that some people do buy more because of file sharing, but don't pretend that there isn't a lot of people taking a free ride, downloading everything and buying nothing.
However, I know people that have never bought a CD in their life, have 8000 songs, and spend over 3 hours a day listening to music? These are people who make more than enough albums to buy a couple albums a month. Are the artists that then listen to getting hurt by them not buying the album. You can argue that well, they weren't going to buy it anyway, but then what would they be listening to? If people spend that much time listening to music, then they should be buying at least some of it. 15 years ago, if you look at someone who like to listen to music, you wouldn't often find anybody who only had tapes they had dubbed off their friends. However, with internet file sharing, there's a lot of people who have never purchased a CD, and who are listening to tons of music. Had they been unable to pirate it, I'm sure they would have bought some, but with the ease of internet file sharing, I'm seeing a lot of people who would be purchasing music purchase none at all.
A little analogy to help this along. I've met a lot of Americans who say that they like Nickelback. Most people from Canada can't stand Nickelback. And do you know why? Well, Canadian content laws say that a certain percentage of music on the radio has to be from Canadian artists. So, because Nickleback is Canadian, and they are popular, you hear them about once an hour. They get way overplayed, and people stop wanting to listen to it. Even if Nickleback was replace with (insert best band ever), it wouldn't matter, because people would still get tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. I don't think the radio has ever been that good, but once file sharing came along as a way to find new music, the radio lost 98% of any appeal it had.
If you're doing any kind of business over the internet, even just hosting a site, wouldn't it be wise to just spend the extra $3.95 (price from my shared hosting provider) for the dedicated IP address? If you're really worried about some IP getting blocked, then I don't think $4 is really going to take a big bite out of your budget.
I put one of those on my X86-64 Linux/Windows machine. They look really nice a black case.
I now recall we used to want this for sports games. After hitting your 700th homerun, watching the homerun sequence becomes pretty boring, it would be nice if you could just skip it and get on with the game.
We used to joke that there should be a skip-the-shit button on most of the games. There's a lot of games where they make you sit through videos or storyline that doesn't really have anything to do with the game. A lot of time they are just trying to push a story into a game that doesn't really need a story, or the story is so bad, that nobody wants to listen.
How come Europe has so much better public transit then? What is so different about Europe that makes it possible to have good public transit? The only difference is that they are committed to building a good public transportation system. Cities that make the effort to have good public transit can do it. It's not impossible, it's just that most cities never made the effort. Mind you, there are a lot of cities that are too messed up now, and making changes would be more costly than just staying with the status quo, but they should have changed things long ago. I think it's good that you are willing to make changes in your life to cut down on global warming. My problem is with those who refuse to do anything that might inconvenience them in the slightest way.
I'm not so sure about this. I know a lot of people buying Macs lately. It is taking a while to catch on, but give them 5 years, and I think you'll start to see apple get a much higher market share, at least in the home computer front. Businesses may take longer to switch over due to needs for legacy applications.
I'm not really saying that not driving at all is going to work for everyone, but the attitude of some people with cars is that they have to drive everywhere, even when it's actually easier to walk or take the bus. People will drive to the store when it's only a 5 minute walk away and they spend more time waiting for their car to warm up. People will drive around for 10 minutes looking for the perfect parking spot just so they don't have to walk 3 blocks. Sometimes it really is faster, or at least less stressful to take public transit or walk, and a lot of people don't.
And public transit is as good as your city wants to make it. I'll agree that it helps to be in a large city, but there are plenty of large cities , LA for example, where public transit is worse than even in small towns. A lot of it depends on how much your local government really cares about having a good public transit system.
But most of the solutions are quite out of reach unless the environment has been destroyed and we have no other choice. Telling people that we can just terraform the earth is a bad thing, because it gives them the wrong impression that it's OK if they mess with the environment because science will just fix it. In the end, I think people are better off with cutting down on emissions, and even saving themselves a few bucks rather than destroying the environment and then spending trillions of dollars to fix the problem.
This kind of crap just amazes me. People think up trillion dollar plans like putting up million of tiny umbrellas into geosynchronous orbit to deflect sunlight, but we can't get people to just not drive SUVs, or even go so low as to take the bus, or even walk to the store which is only a block away. I've never owned a car, and I'm really not convinced that I ever want to. There's only a couple instance where I would really want a car, like picking up groceries, but they have a delivery service anyway, for when I want a lot of groceries. Going away for the weekend isn't too much of a problem. Renting a car for 1 weekend a month costs less than most people's insurance.
But not in the case of the small store that I'm referring to, with 4 locations. They'd have to go through someone else to get their CDs.
But it's not the retailers who are supposed to pay the levies. It's the manufacturers or importers. I don't even think there are any manufacturers of CDRs in Canada, so we can assume they aren't coming from that route. I find it hard to believe that there are black market importers for something as cheap as CDRs. Even with the levy, the prices at futureshop et al are pretty low. I couldn't imagine someone wanting to take a risk on illegally importing something with such low profit margins to begin with.
Already being done, it's called 15 years of school.
I still fail to see where the tariff is being collected. You can currently buy a spindle of 100 CDRs for $21.98. According to the site you linked to the tariff on regular, non-audio, CDRs, is $0.21. The CDRs cost less than $0.22 each, and they are being charged a tariff of $0.21 cents. I'm sorry, but i'll have to take the Chewbacca defence on that one, because that makes no sense. You can't seriously tell me that they are selling CDRs for less than 1 cent a piece retail. And this isn't buying CDs out of a garage, it's a store that's been open for quite a while.
But in the end, a lot of the stuff that may take advantage from parallel programming, may or may end up good in practice. Take for instance a database system. If you did a bunch of stuff in parallel algorithms then you basically add a bunch of overhead in the form of distribution and gathering, and extra threads or processes. If you leave it as sequential, then you cut down on the overhead, and leave the other CPUs or cores free for other queries coming into the database. I don't work with parallel programming enough to know the answer, but would you really get better performance than the sequential algorithm? Even when you have to processes multiple requests at once, and 1 request is using all the cores? I remember that it was possible to sort N elements in O(log (n)), but only if you had n processors. So on 1 processor, it ends up taking O(n log (n)), which is the same as a serial sorting algorithm (related article. Usually you have 1 or 2 cores, maybe 4, or something really large like 64 or 128, but if you're sorting billions of elements, then you're very close to something that's only as efficient as the serial algorithm, plus a bunch of overheard. If you have 128 cores, you're probably better off serving 128 requests with serial algorithms, each with it's own core, then trying to run them as parallel processes 1 after the other.
I'm guessing you aren't talking about this kind of Canadian Tea Party
But isn't windows XP really just windows NT 5.1? how can they say they don't support windows NT?
I wrote some parellel code using MPI in university. It takes a lot of work to get the hang of at first, and many people who I know that were good at programming had lots of trouble in this course, because programming for parallelism is very different than programming for a single processor. On the other hand, you can get much better performance from parallel algorithms. However, I think that we could do just as well sticking with the regular algorithms, and having a lot of threads each running on a different core. If you look at an RDBMS, it would be nice if you could sort in less than n log(n) time, but it's even better if you just sort in n log (n), but can run 128 sorts simultaneously. I seem to remember some news about Intel saying they would have 128 core chips available in the near future.
However, there are too many perfectly healthy women who are on the pill who shouldn't be, and who would probably just be a lot better off abstaining from sex or getting the guy to wear a condom. It messes with your body too much, and I think too many women go on the pill when it would just be easier to use some other method.
Lets just hope you never want to have kids. Even with regular birth control, some women have to wait over a year for their body to get back into sync and they start to be fertile again. I would have to think that this would be even worse. It messes with your body quite a bit. I guess you've never heard much from women who can't take the pill because it makes them fell really sick, like being pregnant all the time.
If you want a full sized video screen, why not go for the Archos, or the Creative Zen Vision?