True enough, I meant to say that too.. Dynamic web pages are relatively 'new'.
The difference between just showing a page and creating one is like the difference between a pre-rendered.avi file and rendering it realtime in hardware.
I still figure bandwidth is the big killer. I mean you can only stuff watermelons through a garden hose so fast.
In 1994 websites were nothing more than text documents with perhaps a handful of small.gifs in them. They werent plastered with media-intensive-ads, java applets and shockwave whizbangers, background music, video clips streaming off the same server and blah blah blah innovation.
The web-design and server world seems to be focused on quantity, not quality.
And frankly, much of what/. links to are personal sites run off of a DSL line. I think the effect has more to do with bandwidth than server load.
What I read was that DRM can exist with or without TCPA. Just like SSL exists with or without TCPA.
TCPA adds a dedicated crypto processor and a secure boot process, but there's nothing to prevent crypto for DRM being done on your system right now.
His answers were as honest and truthful as they could be. If someone wanted to create a DRM enabled app that only runs on a specific OS under Palladium, they could do so. If someone wanted to creat a DRM enabled app that only runs on a specific version of non-palladium Windows - they could do so too.
It's like asking "How does liscensing drivers prevent shoplifting?". The two are unrelated. It's a non sequiter.
It's worth noting that DRM has thus far proven to be an unpopular 'feature', and MSFT decided not to include it on Windows MCE. Of course news of MS making a 'good' decision isn't worth of a/. article.
Software doesn't compare to literature, it compares better to trade secrets.
Why should Colonel Sanders tell you what his 'secret blend of herbs and spices' are, or Budweiser give up all their brewing formulas and production techniques so their competitors can duplicate their products and eliminate whatever advantage they feel they have.
It was a stupid question. You are not an AMI customer.
Their customers are motherboard vendors, not end users. Ask the mobo manufacturers or the dells and compaqs. They provided support for TPM because their customers asked for it. It's up to the mobo vendors to decide how to use it, if at all.
I wondered what the big deal would be if the RIAA/whoever just gave in and let people do P2P all they want with some restrictions. Like say limit the quality of encoding to 56kbit or something below CD quality.
Then the music could benefit from extra exposure, and the CDs will become a value-added product and it should actually improve their marketability. If I like the band, then I can pay the 15 bucks for the CD.
I mean, surely all the investment in fighting P2P and coming up with copy protection schemes defeated with magic markers doesn't offset what they'd lose in royalties.
The only drawback from their point of view would be that they couldn't control the exposure. Music would be judged and purchased on its own merits, which would hurt the no-talent prepackaged 'image' bands that are put together in boardrooms.
P2P networks are already chock full of bad 'rips' full of pops and skips, or poorly/wrongly encoded (like 56k mono), misnamed songs, and so on.
Eventually the people who get 'into' it figure out who enjoys the same sort of music they do, and who tends to have quality mp3s on their sites. So the metalheads migrate together, and the hip hop fans, etc.
If they stray outside their 'clique' and get a garbage tune or two, they delete them and move on.
They also 'poison' newer, profitable releases, and I've found that a huge chunk of the P2P'ers are there for older or more obscure music. The fact that there's a garbage version of Britney Spears' latest floating around doesn't bother a Deadhead or someone looking for underground punk tunes in the least.
So, I suppose it could discourage a handful of 13 year old newbies if by luck they manage to get the garbage files the first time they try it. But it won't 'kill' the networks.
It's a system for expressing "Shut that fucking cell phone off or I'll shove straight it up your ass".
Patent pending
Seriously, when it comes to movies, theatre, and such, it's supposed to be the ushers/managers job to kick out nuisance patrons. They'll eject a noisy teenager, but the 40 year old exec who decides he needs to conduct his business meeting in the middle of a movie is left alone.
"Throw the bum out". We don't need a technology, we need less ignorant people. Go yak it up in the lobby.
"DOS" is just another application on the system, all it does is fire up command.com. No more different than "bash" fires up/bin/sh. There's no reason not to use a better CLI if you need one, and they do exist because I've seen 'em.
Thing is, they're pretty much irrelevant. It's just the CLI vs GUI thing; Windows is a GUI driven OS, and there's really no need for DOS save backwards compatibility.
Fankly I'd love to see the OOP goodness of COM partnered with the process control and flexibility of a good CLI like bash. Which is why I wonder why COM (or something like it if it's so abhorrent to use something MSFT invented) hasn't been implemented in the linux world.
Heck, they could start with a consistent method of cut n' pasting.
>> Unless I'm missing the point - the only real failing of Win32 is that a lot of stuff can't be scripted because of the lack of a CLI
If anything, Windows is even more scriptable than linux because of COM and it's progeny, ActiveX. The functionality of just about every portion of the OS is available, and that of any application that chooses to expose it's functionality. So script away in VBScript, Javascript, TCL, or any other COM-aware language - dealers choice.
Linux is great and all, but you really wind up with an incohesive jumble of software, each developed in it's own little bubble with no knowledge of the others. If your lucky you can get an integer return value to tie it all together.
The problem with most free software for windows is that it carries the *nix school of thought. No exposed interfaces, and they don't like to play nice with the rest of the system. COM is really a binary format that has nothing to do with OS's (there's no reason it couldnt be implemented in linux), so it's not about it being proprietary.
MS-bashers are quick to point out shortcomings in the OS, but never seem to notice the Good Things (tm) that make it popular.
When you look around PCI-SIG's site, you find the agreement for use of their logos.
First off in the document is this:
"THE PCI-SIG LOGO MAY BE USED ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH PRODUCTS WHICH HAVE PASSED PCI-SIG COMPLIANCE TESTING AND ARE CURRENTLY ON THE INTEGRATORS LIST."
Basically it's a symbol intended to mark products that have met their technical standards, and are approved by them. Like the "Designed for Windows XP" or "Intel Inside" logos.
PCI-SIG is a group that sits and rubber stamps hardware for compatibility, and the fact that he lists PCI compatible devices using their logo is misleading and actionable. People think his is the 'official' list, and it isnt.
All he need do is ditch the logo, and make it obvious that it's a hobbyist list for OSS development and everything's hunky-dory.
This is a prime example of the OSS community cutting off their nose to spite their face. It amounts to not much more than a tantrum.
No, the choices are there but you'd have to scroll down to see them, or some such. Just like you have to bust out the Owl Eyes(tm) to read the fine print on a loan application.
Slashdot Mirror
"Blast" technology refers to a new way of getting money from your credit card and/or chequing account.
Just imagine all the duplicate stories a time-reversal wi-fi link could eliminate!
I thought that was Robert Blake?
True enough, I meant to say that too.. Dynamic web pages are relatively 'new'.
.avi file and rendering it realtime in hardware.
The difference between just showing a page and creating one is like the difference between a pre-rendered
I still figure bandwidth is the big killer. I mean you can only stuff watermelons through a garden hose so fast.
I think he meant Garth Vader.
In 1994 websites were nothing more than text documents with perhaps a handful of small .gifs in them. They werent plastered with media-intensive-ads, java applets and shockwave whizbangers, background music, video clips streaming off the same server and blah blah blah innovation.
/. links to are personal sites run off of a DSL line. I think the effect has more to do with bandwidth than server load.
The web-design and server world seems to be focused on quantity, not quality.
And frankly, much of what
/. is down or slow probably 5 or 6 hours out of the day lately. I don't think so.
What I read was that DRM can exist with or without TCPA. Just like SSL exists with or without TCPA.
/. article.
TCPA adds a dedicated crypto processor and a secure boot process, but there's nothing to prevent crypto for DRM being done on your system right now.
His answers were as honest and truthful as they could be. If someone wanted to create a DRM enabled app that only runs on a specific OS under Palladium, they could do so. If someone wanted to creat a DRM enabled app that only runs on a specific version of non-palladium Windows - they could do so too.
It's like asking "How does liscensing drivers prevent shoplifting?". The two are unrelated. It's a non sequiter.
It's worth noting that DRM has thus far proven to be an unpopular 'feature', and MSFT decided not to include it on Windows MCE. Of course news of MS making a 'good' decision isn't worth of a
No, it's a bad analogy.
Software doesn't compare to literature, it compares better to trade secrets.
Why should Colonel Sanders tell you what his 'secret blend of herbs and spices' are, or Budweiser give up all their brewing formulas and production techniques so their competitors can duplicate their products and eliminate whatever advantage they feel they have.
It was a stupid question. You are not an AMI customer.
Their customers are motherboard vendors, not end users. Ask the mobo manufacturers or the dells and compaqs. They provided support for TPM because their customers asked for it. It's up to the mobo vendors to decide how to use it, if at all.
Why would the poster be so concerned about P2P if he thinks that the music isn't worth listening to anyways?
Ahhh, the sweet smell of nerd hypocrisy. "I don't like your product - give it to me for free!"
I wondered what the big deal would be if the RIAA/whoever just gave in and let people do P2P all they want with some restrictions. Like say limit the quality of encoding to 56kbit or something below CD quality.
Then the music could benefit from extra exposure, and the CDs will become a value-added product and it should actually improve their marketability. If I like the band, then I can pay the 15 bucks for the CD.
I mean, surely all the investment in fighting P2P and coming up with copy protection schemes defeated with magic markers doesn't offset what they'd lose in royalties.
The only drawback from their point of view would be that they couldn't control the exposure. Music would be judged and purchased on its own merits, which would hurt the no-talent prepackaged 'image' bands that are put together in boardrooms.
P2P networks are already chock full of bad 'rips' full of pops and skips, or poorly/wrongly encoded (like 56k mono), misnamed songs, and so on.
Eventually the people who get 'into' it figure out who enjoys the same sort of music they do, and who tends to have quality mp3s on their sites. So the metalheads migrate together, and the hip hop fans, etc.
If they stray outside their 'clique' and get a garbage tune or two, they delete them and move on.
They also 'poison' newer, profitable releases, and I've found that a huge chunk of the P2P'ers are there for older or more obscure music. The fact that there's a garbage version of Britney Spears' latest floating around doesn't bother a Deadhead or someone looking for underground punk tunes in the least.
So, I suppose it could discourage a handful of 13 year old newbies if by luck they manage to get the garbage files the first time they try it. But it won't 'kill' the networks.
An AC describes how he posted random crapfloods and goatse.cx links on a popular, yet pointless, tech discussion website.
With me, it's not so much that they're talking, it's that I have to hear what they're saying. And 9 times out of 10 its:
"Hey! Guess where I'm calling from!!!! McDonalds!! No, I'm SERIOUS!!"
I mean what toothless rube is still impressed by this?
Why can't I legally choke these people to death? Whatever happened to survival of the fittest?
It's a system for expressing "Shut that fucking cell phone off or I'll shove straight it up your ass".
Patent pending
Seriously, when it comes to movies, theatre, and such, it's supposed to be the ushers/managers job to kick out nuisance patrons. They'll eject a noisy teenager, but the 40 year old exec who decides he needs to conduct his business meeting in the middle of a movie is left alone.
"Throw the bum out". We don't need a technology, we need less ignorant people. Go yak it up in the lobby.
"DOS" is just another application on the system, all it does is fire up command.com. No more different than "bash" fires up /bin/sh. There's no reason not to use a better CLI if you need one, and they do exist because I've seen 'em.
Thing is, they're pretty much irrelevant. It's just the CLI vs GUI thing; Windows is a GUI driven OS, and there's really no need for DOS save backwards compatibility.
Fankly I'd love to see the OOP goodness of COM partnered with the process control and flexibility of a good CLI like bash. Which is why I wonder why COM (or something like it if it's so abhorrent to use something MSFT invented) hasn't been implemented in the linux world.
Heck, they could start with a consistent method of cut n' pasting.
>> Unless I'm missing the point - the only real failing of Win32 is that a lot of stuff can't be scripted because of the lack of a CLI
If anything, Windows is even more scriptable than linux because of COM and it's progeny, ActiveX. The functionality of just about every portion of the OS is available, and that of any application that chooses to expose it's functionality. So script away in VBScript, Javascript, TCL, or any other COM-aware language - dealers choice.
Linux is great and all, but you really wind up with an incohesive jumble of software, each developed in it's own little bubble with no knowledge of the others. If your lucky you can get an integer return value to tie it all together.
The problem with most free software for windows is that it carries the *nix school of thought. No exposed interfaces, and they don't like to play nice with the rest of the system. COM is really a binary format that has nothing to do with OS's (there's no reason it couldnt be implemented in linux), so it's not about it being proprietary.
MS-bashers are quick to point out shortcomings in the OS, but never seem to notice the Good Things (tm) that make it popular.
You're being generous.
I couldn't even get through a few paragraphs.
Why anyone would compare his stuff to the likes of HHGTTG or Snow Crash is beyond me.
This guy's a hack. But he wrote a story about Wi-Fi, buzzword of the new millenium.
Featured in CNN after recent trip down under.
I never lost the 'right' to use Java on windows.
This is about MS's rights in the marketplace, not my rights online.
Or does anything that has to do with MSFT automatically categorize it as YRO to get peoples dander up?
or forced to install?
I don't want Java back on my machine. Once bitten, twice shy.
Personally I don't see it as the courts/govts duty to legislate crappy companies into the black. Thats how we end up with stuff like the DMCA.
When you look around PCI-SIG's site, you find the agreement for use of their logos.
First off in the document is this:
"THE PCI-SIG LOGO MAY BE USED ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH PRODUCTS WHICH HAVE PASSED PCI-SIG COMPLIANCE TESTING AND ARE CURRENTLY ON THE INTEGRATORS LIST."
Basically it's a symbol intended to mark products that have met their technical standards, and are approved by them. Like the "Designed for Windows XP" or "Intel Inside" logos.
PCI-SIG is a group that sits and rubber stamps hardware for compatibility, and the fact that he lists PCI compatible devices using their logo is misleading and actionable. People think his is the 'official' list, and it isnt.
All he need do is ditch the logo, and make it obvious that it's a hobbyist list for OSS development and everything's hunky-dory.
This is a prime example of the OSS community cutting off their nose to spite their face. It amounts to not much more than a tantrum.
No, the choices are there but you'd have to scroll down to see them, or some such. Just like you have to bust out the Owl Eyes(tm) to read the fine print on a loan application.
I doubt it's illegal so long as the information is present and available if you look for it.
I dont think it has to be obvious.