I wonder if Windows is capable of reading an ISO9660 filesystem off a non-CD device though...
This is exactly what I was wondering.
ISO9660 is unrealistic as the actual FS of the cards, but perhaps having a small read-only ISO9660 'partition' on the card containing windows drivers for the new filesystem could be of use?
I think at this point, in order for any FS to be a realistic alternative, it needs to be ready and free for the device manufacturers to use now. (GPL may not count, as manufacturers might see the added documentation of supplying source code to their modified drivers as an unnecessary cost, or even impossible while still protecting their trade secrets. This may not be accurate, but may be how they see it.) Free both monetarily when it comes to the code, and non-patent infringing.
Also, windows drivers that allow windows to see it natively need to be ready now, or device manufacturers will be even less likely to change upcoming devices to use the new format.
Even worse, what about old devices, if you switch to a new format? If we use CFFS(Compat Flash FS, no clue if that acronym is laready taken.;P), then you can't just use your CFFS CF card in your old camera, it will only work with new ones. I just don't see a new FS becoming common in any way. People are too used to their cards being interchangeable, only restricted by the maximum size a given device supports(Usually dictated by whether the device understands FAT32 or not). I don't see a new FS becoming common until we hit 137GB flash cards, or get a new form factor that REQUIRES the new FS as part of the licensing for the physical card format.
So, hacker X hacks into my credit card company and downloads their cardholder database.
They can only use 250 #s in one year, by themselves.. But they could sell off the names/#s in blocks of 500 for a decent bit of change, and leave actually exploiting the identities to other people. Not to mention some specific people might be in there, with details like SSN and Mothers Maiden Name that would allow access to possibly more important accounts of databases belonging to that person..
However, isn't it illegal to circumvent code that is a copyright protection mechanism, which sony's DRM rootkit is... Telling people how to remove it could be seen as trafficking in DRM circumvention tools.
What if someone grabs the full installer of sony's DRM, and installs it with their spyware, since it is still technically copyright protection code - it's just being used to hide a program that it wasn't originally intended to hide. Might hold up in court.. might not.. but the possibility of being taken to court is enough to stifle researchers who can't afford to GO to court.
to say 5 yrs from now that most processors made today wont run Windows 2010 (twenty-ten;) seems to be a pretty serious statement.
And a pretty incorrect statement.
Most processors made today have 64 bit support, with the nagging exception of the Intel Laptop market.
Most Pentium 4s(Well, Admittedly, I don't know if it's MOST yet, but MANY.. MOST server and workstation class chips, and all the high end desktop chips, plus some smattering of lower end stuff) have EM64T.
All Athlon chips in the PC market are 64 bit except some Semprons. The only group left out in the cold are Centrino-buyers.
A two-hour movie in really good, MPEG-2 quality takes up approximately 7-8 GB, depending on audio options. Even with a 6 Gb cable connection, that takes roughly three hours to download. (For those who hadn't noticed, that means that it would take longer to download than to watch, so streaming at full quality is not an option.)
6Gb cable connection? Well, pretending you actually mean 6Gb for a moment..
Lets do the math 8 GB = 8*8, 64Gb
64Gb / 6Gb/s ~= 11 seconds to download an 8 GB movie.
Assuming you mean a 6Mb cable connection(what I have at home, out in the boonies, right now.), you're right, ~3 hours. But in 3-4 years, 100+ Mbit isn't out of the question for urban users, and possibly even for folks like me who are STILL too far out there to get DSL. at 100Mb/s, it would take approximately 11 minutes to download that movie(As usual, assuming perfect 100% utilization. ~14 minutes w/ 30% overhead.
Thats less time than it'd take me to go rent the movie.(about 1/2 of the time, since it takes me 15 minutes to get to a rental place.)
That said, the GP poster was smoking something. While 'content' distribution(Entertainment content, that is) might not be the main use for these media formats, lots of content will be put on them. Computer programs WILL still come on physical media for multiple reasons (Installation onto new hardware, installation onto secured(non-internet connected) hardware, etc.), plus the fact that we all want to burn our backups to blue laser discs to cut down on the huge # of disks it takes! It would take me 20 dual layer DVD+R DL disks to backup my home system. Burnt at 2.4x, that doesn't look like a lot of fun for me. (True, I could pare that down by probably 1/2 or more by uninstalling games and just backing up my save files, but that can be a bigger pain/time sink)
Burning a protected song to an unprotected audio CD and them re-ripping it back in could be argued to be circumvention of the protection mechanism. You're just as likely to get busted for that as for Hymning your iTunes files.
(IE, if you're not redistributing them, you aren't going to get busted. You may be breaking the law, but I doubt anyone will notice.)
For the record, the 60GXP's had pretty horrid failure rates too.
I had also seen pictures of a few *GXP drives where the heads seem to have shaved the iron/whatever layer off the platters, causing the eventual death of the drive.
My 60GXP died rather horridly after only a couple months, and I never got a refund, mostly due to my own laziness and desire NOT to be without my system or even a backup of it for however long that would take.
You're suggesting that our current law says that innocent people are going to prison. I think most people are probably finding that to be not the case. Rather, they're finding that millions of people who do gratuitously infringe (the too-cheap-to-pay-the-artist crowd) are slowly convincing themselves that that's the new normal - only chumps pay artists for their work, blah blah. I don't know of any credible anecdote that relates the story of an innocent person - obviously not infringing on anyone's copyright - going to jail for infringing on someone's copyright. Since probably the vast majority of your average audience here feels exactly the same way, you're not going to get much traction on your request that people show support for a zealous-sounding movement that seems to be addressing a non-issue, even as first-run movies are being bittorrented all over the 'net from ripped of critical release DVDs before the films even hit the theatre.
I've watched quite a few (Pressed, purchased) DVDs under linux. I was violating the DMCA every single time, since the code I was using 'breaks' CSS in an illegal manner. The circumstance and purpose for breaking CSS are not applicable to the law, the fact that I posessed and used a 'device' which broke it makes me a criminal offender. Thats what many people are upset about.
Without the DMCRA, breaking copyright protection to lawfully purchased works in order to view/read/listen to the work on an unsupported system is a criminal offense. The only legal way to watch DVDs in linux in the US is to buy powerDVD for linux, which you can't buy directly, you have to buy a Linux distro which has purchased it for you, and wasn't even available before about a year ago!
Now, unfortunately, all my assumptions above about the DMCA are from reading done about two years ago. I don't know if any laws or court decisions have changed the effective terms of the law, but I believe the above is accurate.
Stuffit is unneeded. It was a niche product to support the resource fork + data fork when transmitting/storing the file on mediums that do not support a resource fork(IE, putting it on a unix FTP server or sending it as an attachment to a usenet post, etc). Now that the resource forks are mostly unneeded, partially duplicated in a 'file' that tar can roll up, and becoming deprecated in general... Apple started using.dmg disk images to distribute stuff! ARRRGH!:P Admittedly, it's a wonderful installation method as far as end user experience goes, but it is hardly cross platform compatible.
Most recently we discovered a company laptop w/ 180search and a ton of OTHER stuff installed. Symantec (once we got it working again) found something it labeled as a rootkit, and couldn't clean. 180search(or is it search180) was causing every program to have a memory error on launch, until we cleaned it off.. and the system was still hosed when we had gotten rid of everything we could think of. We had to reimage the laptop to get it clean.
Here's their email support form. Not for any childish flames, of course, but if you don't like something a company is doing you should let them know.
I actually used that form not too long ago to request VOLUME CONTROL via the plugin, and got either a very well written form letter, or a response from a human being. I was impressed. I'll be even more impressed if it gets implemented.
I've been able to max out my connection's line speed over bittorrent - 600KBps or so. The real key is to not max out your upload speed, but don't turn off uploading all together.
Granted, with some torrents, you'll never get that high, but if you actually have a large torrent (Going by # of simultaneous downloaders, like a WoW patch or similar), it doesn't matter if everyone shares 1KBps or 100. As long as your equipment can handle the ~800 concurrent connections, you can still max out your speeds.
My d-link DL-504 router used to crash when I'd use a large torrent through it. So I finally bit the bullet and learned iptables and put a second NIC in my server.
You know... as much as it sucks, you have to admit that if people weren't pirating things, there'd be no need for DRM. Well, I debate the "need" now anyways, given that those who meaningfully impact the sales of legit DVDs will not be impacted by copy protection, since they mostly operate in countires where most of the playing devices sold also do not have copy protection. All copy protection can be defeated, it's fundamental to the technology involved. Once it has been broken once, non-encumbered devices can be used to play the now-unencumbered media.
Honestly, how can you blame companies for trying to protect their profits when thousands of people are ripping them off every day? Oh noes! Thousands! a whole 0.0001% of their market. So why ruin everything for the other 99.9999% of the market? I know more people 'pirate' than merely thousands, but I would say 'ripping off' is only applicable if the copyright holder is losing money/face in the deal, so thousands is probably accurate.;P
Honestly, you should be mad at the pirates, without whom we wouldn't have this problem. No, we'd probably still have this problem anyways, given the behavoir of the MPAA/RIAA et al. since the early 20th century. When any new technology that has a chance of changing their business model comes out, they first attempt to make it completely illegal.
Then, when step #1 fails, they buy up all the manufacturers and simply make it illegal to produce/sell it without them getting a cut.
I fully expect that no matter WHAT, the MPAA/RIAA/et al. would have developed DRM anyways. Just the POSSIBILITY that their stuff could be copied would make them wake up in cold sweats until everything is DRMed.
if the law says it's true, What law? I've never seen a law that regards contracts you cannot read before paying for them.
and the courts say it's true No, actually, the courts have not said anything on this subject yet.
and the EULAs say it's true, and the companies say it's true I've got a bridge to sell you if you'd like it, I swear I own it, see? This contract says I own it, and I'll sell it to you!
and the legal experts all say it's true . . . Legal experts are not the law. they can give you an educated guess at how the courts will apply a given law, but until there is case law on a particular subject, it's very hard for them to be 100% correct.
then it what meaningful way is it not true? Oh, just the whole idea of the power of law in a democracy coming from the people.</idealistic>
Just because "everyone" tells you it's true doesn't mean it is.
What are you basing this on? On my quick google search, they appear at #43 behind many other major software and hardware manufacturers (Microsoft, IBM, Intel, HP, Cisco, Dell, Oracle, SAP). Apple is considered a cult brand, not a top brand. http://www.finfacts.ie/brands2004.htm
Well, I haven't googled myself, but that list is a company ranking based on money, it is not a rating of the 'brand'. It is a rating of how much money a given 'brand' makes a company. When the company has sales that are 100x greater than another.. it's not hard for their 'brand' to make more money, as long as it's 2/100ths as good as the lesser company's brand, they'll make more money with it.
The strength of a "Brand" as this discussion is using the term is completely based on marketting impression and how effective the brand is at getting a customer's attention. Apple is one of the strongest brands in that respect, partly due to their absolutely genious marketting(No matter how stupid you think their ads are, you can recognize them on site, and everyone talks about them, hence, good brand recognition.)
"4. More USB storage key uses. Already on the way via some new portable application standard. And, no, game keys won't work because you can still copy the files to other USB keys and thus the game's copy protection is worthless. They want you have to the actual CD (with their patented copy protection) because it makes piracy more difficult."
Let me fix that last sentence for you:
"They want you have to the actual CD (with their patented copy protection) because it makes piracy less annoying than buying the game legally."
Actually, if the reports that Apple never even TALKED to AMD about switching are correct, I really doubt Jobs initiated contact, unless he already knew about Intel's "Incentives" and planned to use them. If he didn't already know, he would have likely contacted both, so as to play them against eachother(As any good negotiator would.)
For the record, (At least in ohio), bread is not marked up above the actual cost of distribution and sales anywhere NEAR that 400% figure. I've heard it tossed around that grocery items(Actual food items, gourmet and non-food items in the grocery stores don't count.) only make 1% profit on the dollar. But all the other items you listed('Non-food' in the store I used to work at, which is different from 'taxable grocery' items like bottled spring water, and toilet paper), are indeed marked up enormously, and have much higher profit margins. Thats part of where wal-mart managed to cut costs, the mark-up was so high to begin with, they could still be profitable with only 300%, and then force their suppliers to lower costs to move that profit margin back upwards.
Not only is it "old news", but it's also inaccurate. There's a big difference between spoofing a site, and actually "placing malicious content on trusted web sites". One is a browser attack, the other a server attack.
How about google image search? You have a frameset and one frame belonging to google.com, which most people allow to set cookies, and gmail users allow it a bit more in the way of scripts and such.. and you have a frame showing the page the image you just clicked on in its original context. If that original context had malicious code, and was running with google's security.. perhaps it could do some damage?
I'm personally curious what companies think we're going to be using PCI-X and PCI-E for. Gamers are loving it for video cards, but games are really barely taxing those 8x AGP video cards.
Actually, I'm eagerly awaiting pci-e video cards for one thing: Downstream bandwidth.
At least, the pci-e bridge driver is more likely to be optimized for downstream as well as upstream than agp bridge drivers were.
The graphics chips and graphics drivers themselves will still likely ignore downstream (Framebuffer->ram copies) bandwidth, but the possibility is there to actually be able to capture full screen movies at something resembling a normal frame rate.
It's hard to argue that they produce cool looking stuff that works great, holds together well, and is more technologically advanced than everything else on the market. However, they always want to be the market leader, and thus end up with quite a few failed products because of it.
Stick a "Used to" somewhere in there and you'd get my agreement, but I'm fairly willing to argue that they do not make products that hold together well anymore(Unless you mean literally.. my paperweight of a CD walkman is still 'together', but inoperable.;P)
Slashdot Mirror
Two words buddy...
Faraday Cage
I think they need to build one around the whole campus. They they'd all be safe.
And, as an added bonus, no more cell phones going off during that big test.
And this is a perfect example of why I got the hell out of latin class after two semesters. :/
Well, this, and moving to a school district that didn't offer latin.
I wonder if Windows is capable of reading an ISO9660 filesystem off a non-CD device though...
;P), then you can't just use your CFFS CF card in your old camera, it will only work with new ones. I just don't see a new FS becoming common in any way. People are too used to their cards being interchangeable, only restricted by the maximum size a given device supports(Usually dictated by whether the device understands FAT32 or not). I don't see a new FS becoming common until we hit 137GB flash cards, or get a new form factor that REQUIRES the new FS as part of the licensing for the physical card format.
This is exactly what I was wondering.
ISO9660 is unrealistic as the actual FS of the cards, but perhaps having a small read-only ISO9660 'partition' on the card containing windows drivers for the new filesystem could be of use?
I think at this point, in order for any FS to be a realistic alternative, it needs to be ready and free for the device manufacturers to use now. (GPL may not count, as manufacturers might see the added documentation of supplying source code to their modified drivers as an unnecessary cost, or even impossible while still protecting their trade secrets. This may not be accurate, but may be how they see it.) Free both monetarily when it comes to the code, and non-patent infringing.
Also, windows drivers that allow windows to see it natively need to be ready now, or device manufacturers will be even less likely to change upcoming devices to use the new format.
Even worse, what about old devices, if you switch to a new format? If we use CFFS(Compat Flash FS, no clue if that acronym is laready taken.
I prefer 01-12-2005 for logfile names, so in a directory list, they appear by date even when sorting by name.
Not a requirement, to be sure, but it sure is convenient.
So, hacker X hacks into my credit card company and downloads their cardholder database.
They can only use 250 #s in one year, by themselves.. But they could sell off the names/#s in blocks of 500 for a decent bit of change, and leave actually exploiting the identities to other people. Not to mention some specific people might be in there, with details like SSN and Mothers Maiden Name that would allow access to possibly more important accounts of databases belonging to that person..
However, isn't it illegal to circumvent code that is a copyright protection mechanism, which sony's DRM rootkit is... Telling people how to remove it could be seen as trafficking in DRM circumvention tools.
What if someone grabs the full installer of sony's DRM, and installs it with their spyware, since it is still technically copyright protection code - it's just being used to hide a program that it wasn't originally intended to hide. Might hold up in court.. might not.. but the possibility of being taken to court is enough to stifle researchers who can't afford to GO to court.
to say 5 yrs from now that most processors made today wont run Windows 2010 (twenty-ten ;) seems to be a pretty serious statement.
And a pretty incorrect statement.
Most processors made today have 64 bit support, with the nagging exception of the Intel Laptop market.
Most Pentium 4s(Well, Admittedly, I don't know if it's MOST yet, but MANY.. MOST server and workstation class chips, and all the high end desktop chips, plus some smattering of lower end stuff) have EM64T.
All Athlon chips in the PC market are 64 bit except some Semprons. The only group left out in the cold are Centrino-buyers.
A two-hour movie in really good, MPEG-2 quality takes up approximately 7-8 GB, depending on audio options. Even with a 6 Gb cable connection, that takes roughly three hours to download. (For those who hadn't noticed, that means that it would take longer to download than to watch, so streaming at full quality is not an option.)
6Gb cable connection? Well, pretending you actually mean 6Gb for a moment..
Lets do the math 8 GB = 8*8, 64Gb
64Gb / 6Gb/s ~= 11 seconds to download an 8 GB movie.
Assuming you mean a 6Mb cable connection(what I have at home, out in the boonies, right now.), you're right, ~3 hours. But in 3-4 years, 100+ Mbit isn't out of the question for urban users, and possibly even for folks like me who are STILL too far out there to get DSL. at 100Mb/s, it would take approximately 11 minutes to download that movie(As usual, assuming perfect 100% utilization. ~14 minutes w/ 30% overhead.
Thats less time than it'd take me to go rent the movie.(about 1/2 of the time, since it takes me 15 minutes to get to a rental place.)
That said, the GP poster was smoking something. While 'content' distribution(Entertainment content, that is) might not be the main use for these media formats, lots of content will be put on them. Computer programs WILL still come on physical media for multiple reasons (Installation onto new hardware, installation onto secured(non-internet connected) hardware, etc.), plus the fact that we all want to burn our backups to blue laser discs to cut down on the huge # of disks it takes! It would take me 20 dual layer DVD+R DL disks to backup my home system. Burnt at 2.4x, that doesn't look like a lot of fun for me. (True, I could pare that down by probably 1/2 or more by uninstalling games and just backing up my save files, but that can be a bigger pain/time sink)
Burning a protected song to an unprotected audio CD and them re-ripping it back in could be argued to be circumvention of the protection mechanism. You're just as likely to get busted for that as for Hymning your iTunes files.
(IE, if you're not redistributing them, you aren't going to get busted. You may be breaking the law, but I doubt anyone will notice.)
For the record, the 60GXP's had pretty horrid failure rates too.
I had also seen pictures of a few *GXP drives where the heads seem to have shaved the iron/whatever layer off the platters, causing the eventual death of the drive.
My 60GXP died rather horridly after only a couple months, and I never got a refund, mostly due to my own laziness and desire NOT to be without my system or even a backup of it for however long that would take.
You're suggesting that our current law says that innocent people are going to prison. I think most people are probably finding that to be not the case. Rather, they're finding that millions of people who do gratuitously infringe (the too-cheap-to-pay-the-artist crowd) are slowly convincing themselves that that's the new normal - only chumps pay artists for their work, blah blah. I don't know of any credible anecdote that relates the story of an innocent person - obviously not infringing on anyone's copyright - going to jail for infringing on someone's copyright. Since probably the vast majority of your average audience here feels exactly the same way, you're not going to get much traction on your request that people show support for a zealous-sounding movement that seems to be addressing a non-issue, even as first-run movies are being bittorrented all over the 'net from ripped of critical release DVDs before the films even hit the theatre.
I've watched quite a few (Pressed, purchased) DVDs under linux. I was violating the DMCA every single time, since the code I was using 'breaks' CSS in an illegal manner. The circumstance and purpose for breaking CSS are not applicable to the law, the fact that I posessed and used a 'device' which broke it makes me a criminal offender. Thats what many people are upset about.
Without the DMCRA, breaking copyright protection to lawfully purchased works in order to view/read/listen to the work on an unsupported system is a criminal offense. The only legal way to watch DVDs in linux in the US is to buy powerDVD for linux, which you can't buy directly, you have to buy a Linux distro which has purchased it for you, and wasn't even available before about a year ago!
Now, unfortunately, all my assumptions above about the DMCA are from reading done about two years ago. I don't know if any laws or court decisions have changed the effective terms of the law, but I believe the above is accurate.
Stuffit is unneeded. It was a niche product to support the resource fork + data fork when transmitting/storing the file on mediums that do not support a resource fork(IE, putting it on a unix FTP server or sending it as an attachment to a usenet post, etc). Now that the resource forks are mostly unneeded, partially duplicated in a 'file' that tar can roll up, and becoming deprecated in general... Apple started using .dmg disk images to distribute stuff! ARRRGH! :P Admittedly, it's a wonderful installation method as far as end user experience goes, but it is hardly cross platform compatible.
Most recently we discovered a company laptop w/ 180search and a ton of OTHER stuff installed. Symantec (once we got it working again) found something it labeled as a rootkit, and couldn't clean. 180search(or is it search180) was causing every program to have a memory error on launch, until we cleaned it off.. and the system was still hosed when we had gotten rid of everything we could think of. We had to reimage the laptop to get it clean.
Here's their email support form. Not for any childish flames, of course, but if you don't like something a company is doing you should let them know.
I actually used that form not too long ago to request VOLUME CONTROL via the plugin, and got either a very well written form letter, or a response from a human being. I was impressed. I'll be even more impressed if it gets implemented.
I've been able to max out my connection's line speed over bittorrent - 600KBps or so. The real key is to not max out your upload speed, but don't turn off uploading all together.
Granted, with some torrents, you'll never get that high, but if you actually have a large torrent (Going by # of simultaneous downloaders, like a WoW patch or similar), it doesn't matter if everyone shares 1KBps or 100. As long as your equipment can handle the ~800 concurrent connections, you can still max out your speeds.
My d-link DL-504 router used to crash when I'd use a large torrent through it. So I finally bit the bullet and learned iptables and put a second NIC in my server.
You know... as much as it sucks, you have to admit that if people weren't pirating things, there'd be no need for DRM.
;P
Well, I debate the "need" now anyways, given that those who meaningfully impact the sales of legit DVDs will not be impacted by copy protection, since they mostly operate in countires where most of the playing devices sold also do not have copy protection. All copy protection can be defeated, it's fundamental to the technology involved. Once it has been broken once, non-encumbered devices can be used to play the now-unencumbered media.
Honestly, how can you blame companies for trying to protect their profits when thousands of people are ripping them off every day?
Oh noes! Thousands! a whole 0.0001% of their market. So why ruin everything for the other 99.9999% of the market? I know more people 'pirate' than merely thousands, but I would say 'ripping off' is only applicable if the copyright holder is losing money/face in the deal, so thousands is probably accurate.
Honestly, you should be mad at the pirates, without whom we wouldn't have this problem.
No, we'd probably still have this problem anyways, given the behavoir of the MPAA/RIAA et al. since the early 20th century. When any new technology that has a chance of changing their business model comes out, they first attempt to make it completely illegal.
Then, when step #1 fails, they buy up all the manufacturers and simply make it illegal to produce/sell it without them getting a cut.
I fully expect that no matter WHAT, the MPAA/RIAA/et al. would have developed DRM anyways. Just the POSSIBILITY that their stuff could be copied would make them wake up in cold sweats until everything is DRMed.
if the law says it's true,
What law? I've never seen a law that regards contracts you cannot read before paying for them.
and the courts say it's true
No, actually, the courts have not said anything on this subject yet.
and the EULAs say it's true, and the companies say it's true
I've got a bridge to sell you if you'd like it, I swear I own it, see? This contract says I own it, and I'll sell it to you!
and the legal experts all say it's true . . .
Legal experts are not the law. they can give you an educated guess at how the courts will apply a given law, but until there is case law on a particular subject, it's very hard for them to be 100% correct.
then it what meaningful way is it not true?
Oh, just the whole idea of the power of law in a democracy coming from the people.</idealistic>
Just because "everyone" tells you it's true doesn't mean it is.
What are you basing this on? On my quick google search, they appear at #43 behind many other major software and hardware manufacturers (Microsoft, IBM, Intel, HP, Cisco, Dell, Oracle, SAP). Apple is considered a cult brand, not a top brand. http://www.finfacts.ie/brands2004.htm
Well, I haven't googled myself, but that list is a company ranking based on money, it is not a rating of the 'brand'. It is a rating of how much money a given 'brand' makes a company. When the company has sales that are 100x greater than another.. it's not hard for their 'brand' to make more money, as long as it's 2/100ths as good as the lesser company's brand, they'll make more money with it.
The strength of a "Brand" as this discussion is using the term is completely based on marketting impression and how effective the brand is at getting a customer's attention. Apple is one of the strongest brands in that respect, partly due to their absolutely genious marketting(No matter how stupid you think their ads are, you can recognize them on site, and everyone talks about them, hence, good brand recognition.)
"4. More USB storage key uses. Already on the way via some new portable application standard. And, no, game keys won't work because you can still copy the files to other USB keys and thus the game's copy protection is worthless. They want you have to the actual CD (with their patented copy protection) because it makes piracy more difficult."
Let me fix that last sentence for you:
"They want you have to the actual CD (with their patented copy protection) because it makes piracy less annoying than buying the game legally."
and I'd think Jobs probably initiated contact.
Actually, if the reports that Apple never even TALKED to AMD about switching are correct, I really doubt Jobs initiated contact, unless he already knew about Intel's "Incentives" and planned to use them. If he didn't already know, he would have likely contacted both, so as to play them against eachother(As any good negotiator would.)
For the record, (At least in ohio), bread is not marked up above the actual cost of distribution and sales anywhere NEAR that 400% figure. I've heard it tossed around that grocery items(Actual food items, gourmet and non-food items in the grocery stores don't count.) only make 1% profit on the dollar. But all the other items you listed('Non-food' in the store I used to work at, which is different from 'taxable grocery' items like bottled spring water, and toilet paper), are indeed marked up enormously, and have much higher profit margins. Thats part of where wal-mart managed to cut costs, the mark-up was so high to begin with, they could still be profitable with only 300%, and then force their suppliers to lower costs to move that profit margin back upwards.
Not only is it "old news", but it's also inaccurate. There's a big difference between spoofing a site, and actually "placing malicious content on trusted web sites". One is a browser attack, the other a server attack.
How about google image search? You have a frameset and one frame belonging to google.com, which most people allow to set cookies, and gmail users allow it a bit more in the way of scripts and such.. and you have a frame showing the page the image you just clicked on in its original context. If that original context had malicious code, and was running with google's security.. perhaps it could do some damage?
HBO has no advertising except for other HBO shows.
Even product placement is supposedly unpaid.
I'm personally curious what companies think we're going to be using PCI-X and PCI-E for. Gamers are loving it for video cards, but games are really barely taxing those 8x AGP video cards.
Actually, I'm eagerly awaiting pci-e video cards for one thing: Downstream bandwidth.
At least, the pci-e bridge driver is more likely to be optimized for downstream as well as upstream than agp bridge drivers were.
The graphics chips and graphics drivers themselves will still likely ignore downstream (Framebuffer->ram copies) bandwidth, but the possibility is there to actually be able to capture full screen movies at something resembling a normal frame rate.
It's hard to argue that they produce cool looking stuff that works great, holds together well, and is more technologically advanced than everything else on the market. However, they always want to be the market leader, and thus end up with quite a few failed products because of it.
;P)
Stick a "Used to" somewhere in there and you'd get my agreement, but I'm fairly willing to argue that they do not make products that hold together well anymore(Unless you mean literally.. my paperweight of a CD walkman is still 'together', but inoperable.