The Cracker Constant: (Days to design a DRM system + Days to convince RIAA to use it + Days to get discs using it pressed in the hands of consumers) / Days first successful crack is posted.
If this format allows revocation of keys for compromised hardware the next time you play an updated disc after your player, than mischief can certain abound.
1: Company A cracks Company B's more successful player and distributes said crack over Usenet.
2: Company B's keys are revoked, rendering their players useless.
3: PROFIT!
I, for one, find no need in this world for worm writers, virus writers, phishers, Nigerian scammers, adware/spyware secret installers, keyboard loggers, and the rest of the trash that pollutes the otherwise exceptionally useful and wonderful Internet. Locking them away, and away from computers, for the rest of either their lives or my own -- which ever is shorter -- wouldn't bother me a bit.
(Btw, I doubt her claim has any validity since there is an international treaty maintianing that no individual citizen or country has any claim on the rest of the universe beyond the Earth. While I don't agree with this signing away of my rights -- i.e. I'm prohibited from owning property on the Moon unless I can take it by force and defend it afterwards -- and IANAL, but this will probably shoot down her claim in the courts.)
This is Really Scary that a government -- any government -- can move this fast. Our best protection against any overbearing government is the slow pace that any change normally takes. Sweden is now on my Scary list.
Microsoft gets off cheap. While $775M is big to us, they just write a check out of cash reserves and continue on with one less legal hassle. Good deal for them.
Actually, special effects (especially CGI) are cheaper to buy than acting talent.
Lights. Camera. Action! = Acting Talent.
CGI effects at a keyboard = Programming Talent.
Rates set by scarcity, skill, deadlines, and what the market will bear. Maybe someday the Holy Grail of CGI will be reached, which is no live actors at all. Then maybe the programmers will become the stars. Wouldn't that be a kick?
without any copyright protection of digital content, they may be correct that new high quality content is likely to dry up
And I expect this to happen oh, about NEVER!
People here live and breath to do certain things. Would the phonograph have driven Mozart out of the composing business? Did the player piano end live performances?
Do you really think Hollywood is suddenly going to decide, "Oh my, the masses have discovered broadband Internet connections. Time to turn out the lights, sell this valuable real estate, and get a new profession."
Ain't going to happen. They'll adapt and they'll continue to prosper. All this you'll lose all the good programming if you don't give us everything we want is nothing more than scare tactics. Truth is, most of them really can't do anything else, and wouldn't want to if they could.
A solid metallic core that's 70 times more dense than liquid rock? That's some kind of metal I'd like to know more about.
Of course, maybe our planet is so light because its core is filled with million-year-old Martian war machines that are flimsy enough to be damaged by current weapons.
Martians have journeyed millions of miles to attack a crane operator and his neighbors (and if they're not Martians, they journeyed a lot farther).
If Jobs would finally get it through his head that Microsoft continuously kick's Apple's arse for, among other reasons, the fact that Apple refuses to position themselves as a software/OS company and tries to straddle the line, which Microsoft has carefully tried to avoid doing since forever.
This is so true. What is the major complaint about Apple? It costs too much! When was the last time you heard that about a Windows PC with the blame put on Microsoft? How about never.
Intel should NOT be strong-arming anyone and they deserve to be rebuked by the courts for it, but it should be a criminal anti-trust slap and not a civil court slap as it looks more like vindictiveness and victimhood whinyness.
Do you see the criminal courts doing this? I don't. And until they do, I don't find it vindictiveness and victimhood whinyness to stand up for yourself. I admire it, and wonder why it took them so long.
Now what would happen if the Apple faniatics and the AMD fanboys could ever get together on the same platform?
headed down the wrong track by trying to involve the public. It's always been my impression when you have an active law suit going you keep your mouth shut. AMD should take lessons from IBM on how to properly handle the public relations aspect of a law suit.
AMD needs the public. Unlike IBM where mainframe purchase decisions are made by I.T. management, the public buys personal computers. AMD needs the public to feel screwed and demand that Dell sell them AMD-powered PCs at a good price.
Dell says their customers aren't demanding AMD PC's. More likely, Dell is doing everything in their power to not listen to their customers.
What you buy at home soon becomes what you demand at work at well. AMD needs the public to turn the tide.
There's a lot of noise here that Intel is just using hardball business tactics to shutout AMD in legal ways. Let's consider the following two theoretical situations, neither of which I personally allege Intel has actually done. These are for illustration only.
Case 1: Intel charges you more for their chips that you need for your products because you also sell products using AMD processors.
Case 2: Intel charges you more for their chips that you need for your products because you're a Black business owner.
Is Intel legally and/or morally allowed to do both of the above?
Is Intel legally and/or morally allowed to do either of the above?
If yes to the second question, describe the real difference between these cases.
I state that both cases are equivalent, and that it is unacceptable business practice for any supplier of vital components to other manufacturers to discriminate on price or delivery for any reason, except if there are reasonable discounts for volume purchases available to any pool of people who get together to take advantage of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing eBay uses a red "e".
And all the DRM system has to do is refuse to support your sound card.
End of discussion.
Higher is better!
1: Company A cracks Company B's more successful player and distributes said crack over Usenet.
2: Company B's keys are revoked, rendering their players useless.
3: PROFIT!
A 3-steps to Profit is a short pipeline indeed.
You mean they didn't take it to Disneyland?
I, for one, find no need in this world for worm writers, virus writers, phishers, Nigerian scammers, adware/spyware secret installers, keyboard loggers, and the rest of the trash that pollutes the otherwise exceptionally useful and wonderful Internet. Locking them away, and away from computers, for the rest of either their lives or my own -- which ever is shorter -- wouldn't bother me a bit.
Will a NATing router protect you sufficiently to download patches once you've turned off File & Print Sharing?
Now how do I translate that to Russian?
(Btw, I doubt her claim has any validity since there is an international treaty maintianing that no individual citizen or country has any claim on the rest of the universe beyond the Earth. While I don't agree with this signing away of my rights -- i.e. I'm prohibited from owning property on the Moon unless I can take it by force and defend it afterwards -- and IANAL, but this will probably shoot down her claim in the courts.)
This is Really Scary that a government -- any government -- can move this fast. Our best protection against any overbearing government is the slow pace that any change normally takes. Sweden is now on my Scary list.
But did he get a raise? Say about half of what he saved them.
Don't you just hate when this happens?
Microsoft gets off cheap. While $775M is big to us, they just write a check out of cash reserves and continue on with one less legal hassle. Good deal for them.
Chinese Government wants to maintain full control.
I'm placing my bets on Information.
Easy solution. Send it to Google Video. They're actively looking for content to host.
Lights. Camera. Action! = Acting Talent.
CGI effects at a keyboard = Programming Talent.
Rates set by scarcity, skill, deadlines, and what the market will bear. Maybe someday the Holy Grail of CGI will be reached, which is no live actors at all. Then maybe the programmers will become the stars. Wouldn't that be a kick?
And I expect this to happen oh, about NEVER!
People here live and breath to do certain things. Would the phonograph have driven Mozart out of the composing business? Did the player piano end live performances?
Do you really think Hollywood is suddenly going to decide, "Oh my, the masses have discovered broadband Internet connections. Time to turn out the lights, sell this valuable real estate, and get a new profession."
Ain't going to happen. They'll adapt and they'll continue to prosper. All this you'll lose all the good programming if you don't give us everything we want is nothing more than scare tactics. Truth is, most of them really can't do anything else, and wouldn't want to if they could.
Oops, I've posted to this thread now. There go my moderation privileges.
Excuse me, but did you just shoot down the whole concept of Intelligent Design of the Universe?
Oops, you used big bad evil Science. That's not fair! Just go away now because we don't want to talk to you any more.
A solid metallic core that's 70 times more dense than liquid rock? That's some kind of metal I'd like to know more about.
Of course, maybe our planet is so light because its core is filled with million-year-old Martian war machines that are flimsy enough to be damaged by current weapons.
Martians have journeyed millions of miles to attack a crane operator and his neighbors (and if they're not Martians, they journeyed a lot farther).
--- Roger Ebert
For starters, it could be illegal in Europe.
Very bad!
In fact, overall this has been a very bad couple of weeks for the U.S. Courts.
This is so true. What is the major complaint about Apple? It costs too much! When was the last time you heard that about a Windows PC with the blame put on Microsoft? How about never.
Intel should NOT be strong-arming anyone and they deserve to be rebuked by the courts for it, but it should be a criminal anti-trust slap and not a civil court slap as it looks more like vindictiveness and victimhood whinyness.
Do you see the criminal courts doing this? I don't. And until they do, I don't find it vindictiveness and victimhood whinyness to stand up for yourself. I admire it, and wonder why it took them so long.
Now what would happen if the Apple faniatics and the AMD fanboys could ever get together on the same platform?
AMD needs the public. Unlike IBM where mainframe purchase decisions are made by I.T. management, the public buys personal computers. AMD needs the public to feel screwed and demand that Dell sell them AMD-powered PCs at a good price.
Dell says their customers aren't demanding AMD PC's. More likely, Dell is doing everything in their power to not listen to their customers.
What you buy at home soon becomes what you demand at work at well. AMD needs the public to turn the tide.
Case 1: Intel charges you more for their chips that you need for your products because you also sell products using AMD processors.
Case 2: Intel charges you more for their chips that you need for your products because you're a Black business owner.
Is Intel legally and/or morally allowed to do both of the above?
Is Intel legally and/or morally allowed to do either of the above?
If yes to the second question, describe the real difference between these cases.
I state that both cases are equivalent, and that it is unacceptable business practice for any supplier of vital components to other manufacturers to discriminate on price or delivery for any reason, except if there are reasonable discounts for volume purchases available to any pool of people who get together to take advantage of them.
How say you?