Making that point difficult to get at may work for a few years, but then it will be broken and that massive investment will be shot to hell.
Well, here's the thing. It's not about absolute security... it's about keeping the vast majority of consumers under lock and key. And, even with DeCSS and this HDCP crack, they still are, and always will be.
The people that run the media companies are not ignorant: they understand very clearly the intent of DRM. This is about raising the bar high enough to prevent casual copying, no more and no less, and for most people, good old CSS does just that.
Yes, I had forgotten about that recent case. Bad precedent it is, too. But I still want to know: why should software be treated so differently that every other product under the sun?
I think this comes under the "why do dogs lick their balls" heading.
I used the term performance, not clock speed, for a reason.
Besides, let's face it... there's no real marketing value to increasing speeds for your typical desktop user. For a long time, people were driven to upgrade because their machines literally were too slow, even for tasks that are considered mundane by today's standards. That's not been the case for a long time: CPUs have reached true commodity levels in terms of performance. That's why you see Intel and AMD reaching out into other areas (embedded systems, GPUs, peripherals, you name it) in order to find new ways to gain marketshare. The dollars users put into upgrading their processors are now being spent on peripherals: more storage, video cameras, better printers, etc., because, for most things, their computers are fast enough. Hell, I spent a couple hundred bucks on Newegg putting together a basic single-core system just for my living room. Plays 1920x1080 videos smooth as silk, provides all the Web functionality most people would ever need, and runs most other typical office apps must fine.
You're right though, few applications are written to natively benefit from SMP or other multiprocessor configurations... but that's because they don't need to be. Until someone figures out that next killer app that everyone absolutely must have that requires eight or sixteen 3 Ghz. cores, we may not see much improvement in performance. I mean, at this point, since upgrade cycles not being driven by performance so much as they used to be, where's the ROI from a CPU makers standpoint?
It sure looks like Sony's ripping the Linux option out of the PS3 is what finally coaxed crackers to jailbreak the resulting PS3.
Pesonally, I'm finding it hard to believe that the number of people that want to run Linux on their game consoles would have any significant impact on game sales. This just sounds more like some typically paranoid control-freak upper management decision.
It's a shame that they don't support it any more, because PS2 titles are plentiful and cheap. And often better than the PS3 in game-play.
It's a shame, perhaps, but good for business. People have "x" minutes per unit time to spend playing games, and they'd rather you be playing a current release so you can get tired of it and buy the next big thing.
You were being sarcastic, but actually they should be.
And similarly, the RIAA and the record labels should have been thrilled when Napster went online, and positively orgasmic when Justin Frankel released Gnutella. But they weren't, and for the same reason: they are all control freaks, and it doesn't matter if easing up a little might actually make more money. Control comes first.
I just looked up their plans. They have multiple tiers, but the AUS$60 plan allows 120GB prior to being throttled
You can buy upto 200GB if you are a heavy user (with 256k throttle when exceeded). That's still 1/3rd my full speed CATV plan and not that bad.
Yes, I'm on AT&T U-Verse myself, and I'm currently on the 12 mbit/sec tier. I was on the max plan, rated at 18 although I was getting 22, but I decided to save a few bucks a month and back it off to 12. I have to say, Comcast's ridiculous commercials aside, I've been very happy with the service. I used to have Comcast and got less speed and more latency, for more money.
If the customers desires more than 250 GB, then let him buy more from his Aussie provider.
If that Aussie provider doesn't want to end up in court, let him advertise what he's actually offering. This isn't about the quality of service, it's about their quality of ethics.
I live in the U.S., and it's stories like this that make me feel better when I read other stories about countries where you can buy gigabit services for thirty bucks a month. Of course, one has to wonder whether those services are sold under similar misleading terms. I wouldn't know.
It seems the "unlimited" thing seems like such a good sell that every ISP feels the need to offer it, even when they can't actually handle the traffic
Certain words and phrases are simply irresistible to certain mindsets, even when those words and phrases have long since ceased to have any real meaning. They just can't help it: they're so steeped in dishonesty that they don't really see any other way. If the law does come down on these people and force them to fix their advertising, I'm guessing it will be just as painful to these types as having all of their teeth root-canaled simultaneously.
I don't know if you mean a "wiimu" wii emulator or "wiimu" the already existing software, which isn't a wii emu but just a Wii System Menu replacement.
Don't worry about it, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, just stuck two words together because it sounded funny.
"Sony, in their infinite wisdom, didn't create PS3's that can read PS2 game discs."
Well they did for a short time, until they realized that people actually liked being able to play their old games and new ones on the same system. Then they stopped making them capable with PS2 games.
One reason I don't like Sony (one of many.) Unfortunately, Nintendo and Microsoft are also on my shit list, which makes it hard to make a decision.
...that Microsoft's Xbox 360 *still* has not been exploited? PS3 has had a number of exploits over the years, but Xbox 360 is still locked down tight. Too bad desktop Windows still has remote code execution vulnerabilities discovered every month...
Probably an economic issue. Microsoft (and Sony, for that matter) doesn't make money from console hardware sales... they need game sales to make a profit. So there's a clear incentive to make the Xbox hard to crack. Perhaps Microsoft is just better at that than Sony.
Slashdot Mirror
And how do we decide who to off?
I decide. Next question.
Making that point difficult to get at may work for a few years, but then it will be broken and that massive investment will be shot to hell.
Well, here's the thing. It's not about absolute security ... it's about keeping the vast majority of consumers under lock and key. And, even with DeCSS and this HDCP crack, they still are, and always will be.
The people that run the media companies are not ignorant: they understand very clearly the intent of DRM. This is about raising the bar high enough to prevent casual copying, no more and no less, and for most people, good old CSS does just that.
Yes, I had forgotten about that recent case. Bad precedent it is, too. But I still want to know: why should software be treated so differently that every other product under the sun?
I think this comes under the "why do dogs lick their balls" heading.
Not by those on which it is apparently working?
Yah. Them too. This just goes to show that ignorance is not bliss.
Actually you are wrong.
I used the term performance, not clock speed, for a reason.
... there's no real marketing value to increasing speeds for your typical desktop user. For a long time, people were driven to upgrade because their machines literally were too slow, even for tasks that are considered mundane by today's standards. That's not been the case for a long time: CPUs have reached true commodity levels in terms of performance. That's why you see Intel and AMD reaching out into other areas (embedded systems, GPUs, peripherals, you name it) in order to find new ways to gain marketshare. The dollars users put into upgrading their processors are now being spent on peripherals: more storage, video cameras, better printers, etc., because, for most things, their computers are fast enough. Hell, I spent a couple hundred bucks on Newegg putting together a basic single-core system just for my living room. Plays 1920x1080 videos smooth as silk, provides all the Web functionality most people would ever need, and runs most other typical office apps must fine.
... but that's because they don't need to be. Until someone figures out that next killer app that everyone absolutely must have that requires eight or sixteen 3 Ghz. cores, we may not see much improvement in performance. I mean, at this point, since upgrade cycles not being driven by performance so much as they used to be, where's the ROI from a CPU makers standpoint?
Besides, let's face it
You're right though, few applications are written to natively benefit from SMP or other multiprocessor configurations
It sure looks like Sony's ripping the Linux option out of the PS3 is what finally coaxed crackers to jailbreak the resulting PS3.
Pesonally, I'm finding it hard to believe that the number of people that want to run Linux on their game consoles would have any significant impact on game sales. This just sounds more like some typically paranoid control-freak upper management decision.
It's a shame that they don't support it any more, because PS2 titles are plentiful and cheap. And often better than the PS3 in game-play.
It's a shame, perhaps, but good for business. People have "x" minutes per unit time to spend playing games, and they'd rather you be playing a current release so you can get tired of it and buy the next big thing.
You were being sarcastic, but actually they should be.
And similarly, the RIAA and the record labels should have been thrilled when Napster went online, and positively orgasmic when Justin Frankel released Gnutella. But they weren't, and for the same reason: they are all control freaks, and it doesn't matter if easing up a little might actually make more money. Control comes first.
So, all those people who have hacked their 360's to play backups and even put DLC on the drive... Don't actually exist?
Of course not, Citizen. They're entirely imaginary.
I just looked up their plans. They have multiple tiers, but the AUS$60 plan allows 120GB prior to being throttled
You can buy upto 200GB if you are a heavy user (with 256k throttle when exceeded). That's still 1/3rd my full speed CATV plan and not that bad.
Yes, I'm on AT&T U-Verse myself, and I'm currently on the 12 mbit/sec tier. I was on the max plan, rated at 18 although I was getting 22, but I decided to save a few bucks a month and back it off to 12. I have to say, Comcast's ridiculous commercials aside, I've been very happy with the service. I used to have Comcast and got less speed and more latency, for more money.
If the customers desires more than 250 GB, then let him buy more from his Aussie provider.
If that Aussie provider doesn't want to end up in court, let him advertise what he's actually offering. This isn't about the quality of service, it's about their quality of ethics.
I live in the U.S., and it's stories like this that make me feel better when I read other stories about countries where you can buy gigabit services for thirty bucks a month. Of course, one has to wonder whether those services are sold under similar misleading terms. I wouldn't know.
It seems the "unlimited" thing seems like such a good sell that every ISP feels the need to offer it, even when they can't actually handle the traffic
Certain words and phrases are simply irresistible to certain mindsets, even when those words and phrases have long since ceased to have any real meaning. They just can't help it: they're so steeped in dishonesty that they don't really see any other way. If the law does come down on these people and force them to fix their advertising, I'm guessing it will be just as painful to these types as having all of their teeth root-canaled simultaneously.
Yes, they really call it "unlimited", in the same table with the limits.
I'm always amazed by people whose frontal lobes are capable of generating and publishing such non-sequiturs without exploding.
Dude, I had the only comment on this article for like 2 minutes and I'm the one who gets modded redundant.
WTF, mods...
Yeah, well ... Slashdot has issues.
I don't know if you mean a "wiimu" wii emulator or "wiimu" the already existing software, which isn't a wii emu but just a Wii System Menu replacement.
Don't worry about it, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, just stuck two words together because it sounded funny.
I never would have guessed that from your username :-)
Although if you work in the metal fastener business, I apologize for the joke.
Ha ... I get that a lot, and yes I was, so don't worry about it.
Where do you get your intel from?
Slashdot, of course. So why should we believe you?
I would think that the ability to run linux *again* might be of more interest here on /.
Ah yes, but ideally it should be configurable as a Beowulf Cluster, and be able to fit in a car.
"Sony, in their infinite wisdom, didn't create PS3's that can read PS2 game discs." Well they did for a short time, until they realized that people actually liked being able to play their old games and new ones on the same system. Then they stopped making them capable with PS2 games.
One reason I don't like Sony (one of many.) Unfortunately, Nintendo and Microsoft are also on my shit list, which makes it hard to make a decision.
I wasn't actually being serious.
Should have used <sarcasm> tags for those that need them.
I suppose. I'm rarely accused of being too subtle, however,
if the system wasn't setup to make money from games but from the console, I'd agree with you.
I wasn't actually being serious.
...that Microsoft's Xbox 360 *still* has not been exploited? PS3 has had a number of exploits over the years, but Xbox 360 is still locked down tight. Too bad desktop Windows still has remote code execution vulnerabilities discovered every month...
Probably an economic issue. Microsoft (and Sony, for that matter) doesn't make money from console hardware sales ... they need game sales to make a profit. So there's a clear incentive to make the Xbox hard to crack. Perhaps Microsoft is just better at that than Sony.
I'd sell my wii to get a PS3 if that was the case, but I know it will take ages until a wii emu is in such a usable state
A "wiimu"?
Wouldn't it be funny if, in order to play your favorite PS2 games on your PS3, you have to first rip your PS2 disks?
I'd call it "poetic justice."
I am absolutely certain that Sony's upper management is absolutely thrilled at yet another demonstration of their brainchild's incredible versatility.