If it can play back DRM files, then it necessarily has DRM on it. I hate to say it, but DUH!!!
And of course SOME Linux devices will have DRM on them, but not all of them will. Microsoft is in the DRM business, then it will bundle DRM at every opportunity it gets. While the decision to include DRM in a Linux device will be made by the individual OEM.
Thus, with a Microsoft derived product, you will get DRM. With a Linux derived product, you might get DRM. I'll take my chances with might.
I hate Creative as a company. A few years back it decided not to host any drivers or software on its US servers. It stated, believe it or not, that in fairness to those without broadband access, it was better to charge EVERYONE to buy and mail CDs with the latest drivers.
That ploy didn't work as everyone simply used servers in Europe or Asia to download the drivers and software.
But still to this day you need the original driver off the CD that came with your hardware. If you try to use the latest downloaded drivers, they'll tell you that there is no Creative hardware installed.
What purpose does this serve? I've bought the hardware, they have my money, why be stingy with the drivers? Every other hardware manufacture lets me simply use the latest drivers WITHOUT installing the old drivers first.
Why do I still use Creative's audio cards? Normalization. It's a feature buried in Creative's EAX, but it makes all MP3s (actually all sound files) the same volume. Thus, every computer in my house has a Creative card in it so I can access my MP3 collection from any where in the house.
Does any other sound card maker have a feature similar to Creative's normalization? Or did Creative patent that too?
What I'm saying is that if he had patented his work first, Creative could not have snuck around and did it before him.
And it does not matter if he has prior art or not, the matter would still be ligitated over a period of several years costing millions and millions of dollars.
Every so often Intel tries to branch out. I remember when Intel came out with a graphics card to match its new AGP slot. I remember reading articles about how Intel was going to dominate the graphics market. That never happened.
A few years back Intel starting selling toys and peripherals. Those bombed.
Now Intel is starting to sell integrated audio on its boards. Maybe this time it will work, maybe Intel will dominate, but I doubt it.
Intel makes its money on CPUs. Anything that takes work away from the CPU takes away from Intel's profits. That's why USB is CPU dependant but FireWire isn't. So I seriously doubt that Intel will ever come up with a gaming audio system that doesn't drag down the CPU, requiring a CPU upgrade to get better performance.
I had an Aureal card, and with only two speakers it could surround sound audio extremely well. There was a speaker test involving helicopters and it actually sounded like it was behind you, in front of you, above you, etc. Even my wife was fooled.
Aureal made the same mistake 3dfx made. It decided to sell its own cards instead of licensing the technology to OEMs. That was asinine.
Carmack usually allows access to the source code of his games after their markets have dried up. I wonder how this patent will effect that? Time will tell.
Man, it'd suck spending years writing a game engine from scratch, then having some numb-nut lawyer tell me that someone else owns a part of it.
In "Masters of Doom" Carmack stated, either naively or bravely, that he refuses to file patents for his work as such information should not be locked away but should be free.
Now that he's been burned, I wonder if he'll start filing them as preemptive measures. I hate software patents, but I would if I were him.
There was "never" a time to buy a celeron. Sorry, there was once such a time. The celeron 300A. It was so cheap it was practically free and could be easily clocked to 450MHz and higher. But, other than that one chip, you're right.
She had a hard hat. And tools on her belt. I never saw any ID though. Maybe she was trying to be a Frank Abagnale like con artist, but just wasn't any good at it.
I was moving out a building I was living in. I called my local electric company to come and shut off the power, to keep me from getting bills.
A person came and I took her to the basement where the box was. She looked at me and said, "What do I do now?"
I said, "Your job?! Turn it off."
She asked, "But how?"
I said, "Go and open the box and figure it out."
She said, "But what if I get electrocuted. I'm leaving."
I went over, opened the box, pulled out the large fuses that where there, and the lights went out. Luckily I had a flashlight because she didn't. I should have turned mine off and left her down there.
Van Allen never wrote that we should "never" send people into space again. Neither did I. Allen's argument is that at this point, all the science we need to do can be done more efficiently via robots and without the risk of human life.
Certainly, there WILL be a time (I hope) when we will need to send human life to Mars and elsewhere. We just haven't reached that point yet. If you disagree, that's your right. I would just like some sort of basis to back it up.
The first rule of analogies is that it should be analogous.
We have NO need to replace all earth scientist with robots because there is no financial gain from doing so. However, we have and do replace some scientists with robots due to the dangers involved with the testing. I see a trip to Mars as no different from those instances.
How is touch and feel "very important" in relation to science? It sounds pretty non-scientific and subjective to me.
Let's see, plans for humans being sent to Mars are estimated to cost several billion dollars. While unmanned missions to Mars cost several million. Exactly how is spending more by a magnitude of 1000 times "easier and cheaper"?
It does matter if I'm talking about Microsoft or any other proprietary software. My argument is exactly the same: Terrorists can obtain copies of it. Duh! Try THINKING before posting!
What he is saying that unmanned space flight has the same scientific value but costs infinitely less than manned space flight. If the sole reason we're doing manned flight is adventure, maybe our money would be better spend elsewhere.
Ask yourself this: Considering it will cost billions to send people to the moon versus the millions it cost sending unmanned flights, exactly what scientific experiment could those people do that an unmanned flight could not do? Look for evidence of life or water? Collect samples? Please enlighten me why we need to send a human there to do those things?
Microsoft has been showing its source code to governments and corporations for the last few years. China is one example. Does anyone seriously believe that a terrorist could NOT get a copy of that source?!
Heck, what would stop a terrorist from getting someone employed at Microsoft and simply stealing the code?!
But, then again, Windows is such an easy target for exploitation, getting the source code probably wouldn't be worth the bother. It'd be like stealing a key to a building without locks.
You're right, I made stuff up. It's called a thinking.
Lawrence Rosen created hypothetical situations to show how open source has nothing to fear from software patents. I created different hypothetical situations to show how he's wrong.
People have been thinking for years, and I think it's about time you try it for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, id could release the source code in Europe, unless you guys follow our asinine lead and enact software patents there too!
Rant mode on:
If everyone in Europe hates the US, as you should, why oh why do you listen to our music, watch our movies, and most importantly, emulate our laws?!?!
If it can play back DRM files, then it necessarily has DRM on it. I hate to say it, but DUH!!!
And of course SOME Linux devices will have DRM on them, but not all of them will. Microsoft is in the DRM business, then it will bundle DRM at every opportunity it gets. While the decision to include DRM in a Linux device will be made by the individual OEM.
Thus, with a Microsoft derived product, you will get DRM. With a Linux derived product, you might get DRM. I'll take my chances with might.
I may be wrong, but that does not make it a lie.
Also, if you can point me to a music device that runs Microsoft's software that does NOT have ANY DRM on it, please provide a link.
I hate Creative as a company. A few years back it decided not to host any drivers or software on its US servers. It stated, believe it or not, that in fairness to those without broadband access, it was better to charge EVERYONE to buy and mail CDs with the latest drivers.
That ploy didn't work as everyone simply used servers in Europe or Asia to download the drivers and software.
But still to this day you need the original driver off the CD that came with your hardware. If you try to use the latest downloaded drivers, they'll tell you that there is no Creative hardware installed.
What purpose does this serve? I've bought the hardware, they have my money, why be stingy with the drivers? Every other hardware manufacture lets me simply use the latest drivers WITHOUT installing the old drivers first.
Why do I still use Creative's audio cards? Normalization. It's a feature buried in Creative's EAX, but it makes all MP3s (actually all sound files) the same volume. Thus, every computer in my house has a Creative card in it so I can access my MP3 collection from any where in the house.
Does any other sound card maker have a feature similar to Creative's normalization? Or did Creative patent that too?
What I'm saying is that if he had patented his work first, Creative could not have snuck around and did it before him.
And it does not matter if he has prior art or not, the matter would still be ligitated over a period of several years costing millions and millions of dollars.
Every so often Intel tries to branch out. I remember when Intel came out with a graphics card to match its new AGP slot. I remember reading articles about how Intel was going to dominate the graphics market. That never happened.
A few years back Intel starting selling toys and peripherals. Those bombed.
Now Intel is starting to sell integrated audio on its boards. Maybe this time it will work, maybe Intel will dominate, but I doubt it.
Intel makes its money on CPUs. Anything that takes work away from the CPU takes away from Intel's profits. That's why USB is CPU dependant but FireWire isn't. So I seriously doubt that Intel will ever come up with a gaming audio system that doesn't drag down the CPU, requiring a CPU upgrade to get better performance.
I had an Aureal card, and with only two speakers it could surround sound audio extremely well. There was a speaker test involving helicopters and it actually sounded like it was behind you, in front of you, above you, etc. Even my wife was fooled.
Aureal made the same mistake 3dfx made. It decided to sell its own cards instead of licensing the technology to OEMs. That was asinine.
Carmack usually allows access to the source code of his games after their markets have dried up. I wonder how this patent will effect that? Time will tell.
Man, it'd suck spending years writing a game engine from scratch, then having some numb-nut lawyer tell me that someone else owns a part of it.
And I am a numb-nut lawyer!
If it runs Microsoft's software, then it necessarily has some sort of DRM on it. Thus, I'd have to favor Linux.
In "Masters of Doom" Carmack stated, either naively or bravely, that he refuses to file patents for his work as such information should not be locked away but should be free.
Now that he's been burned, I wonder if he'll start filing them as preemptive measures. I hate software patents, but I would if I were him.
There was "never" a time to buy a celeron. Sorry, there was once such a time. The celeron 300A. It was so cheap it was practically free and could be easily clocked to 450MHz and higher. But, other than that one chip, you're right.
She had a hard hat. And tools on her belt. I never saw any ID though. Maybe she was trying to be a Frank Abagnale like con artist, but just wasn't any good at it.
Nerd: "I developed a program to download porn one million times faster."
Marge: "Does anyone really need that much porn?"
Homer: "(salivating noise) Ahhhhhhhh million times faster"
A wireless connection that is faster than fiber, but isn't.
Isn't that like a car that runs only on water, but doesn't?!
You just LOVE misquoting. No one every said that "all the science we need to do can be done more efficiently with robots."
The argument is that SOME science can be done more efficiently with robots, and in those instances, robots should be used.
I was moving out a building I was living in. I called my local electric company to come and shut off the power, to keep me from getting bills.
A person came and I took her to the basement where the box was. She looked at me and said, "What do I do now?"
I said, "Your job?! Turn it off."
She asked, "But how?"
I said, "Go and open the box and figure it out."
She said, "But what if I get electrocuted. I'm leaving."
I went over, opened the box, pulled out the large fuses that where there, and the lights went out. Luckily I had a flashlight because she didn't. I should have turned mine off and left her down there.
Van Allen never wrote that we should "never" send people into space again. Neither did I. Allen's argument is that at this point, all the science we need to do can be done more efficiently via robots and without the risk of human life.
Certainly, there WILL be a time (I hope) when we will need to send human life to Mars and elsewhere. We just haven't reached that point yet. If you disagree, that's your right. I would just like some sort of basis to back it up.
I've NEVER read any serious proposal of leaving people on Mars. If you can point to one, then please do.
And even if there is such a one-way trip. Half of several billion is still several billion.
The first rule of analogies is that it should be analogous.
We have NO need to replace all earth scientist with robots because there is no financial gain from doing so. However, we have and do replace some scientists with robots due to the dangers involved with the testing. I see a trip to Mars as no different from those instances.
How is touch and feel "very important" in relation to science? It sounds pretty non-scientific and subjective to me.
Let's see, plans for humans being sent to Mars are estimated to cost several billion dollars. While unmanned missions to Mars cost several million. Exactly how is spending more by a magnitude of 1000 times "easier and cheaper"?
How can a man look at more samples than a robot?
What scientific value does "touch and feel" offer?
How is it easier and cheaper to keep a human alive on Mars versus a robot operating on Mars?
I'm still waiting.
I meant Mars not the moon!
It does matter if I'm talking about Microsoft or any other proprietary software. My argument is exactly the same: Terrorists can obtain copies of it. Duh! Try THINKING before posting!
What he is saying that unmanned space flight has the same scientific value but costs infinitely less than manned space flight. If the sole reason we're doing manned flight is adventure, maybe our money would be better spend elsewhere.
Ask yourself this: Considering it will cost billions to send people to the moon versus the millions it cost sending unmanned flights, exactly what scientific experiment could those people do that an unmanned flight could not do? Look for evidence of life or water? Collect samples? Please enlighten me why we need to send a human there to do those things?
Microsoft has been showing its source code to governments and corporations for the last few years. China is one example. Does anyone seriously believe that a terrorist could NOT get a copy of that source?!
Heck, what would stop a terrorist from getting someone employed at Microsoft and simply stealing the code?!
But, then again, Windows is such an easy target for exploitation, getting the source code probably wouldn't be worth the bother. It'd be like stealing a key to a building without locks.
You're right, I made stuff up. It's called a thinking.
Lawrence Rosen created hypothetical situations to show how open source has nothing to fear from software patents. I created different hypothetical situations to show how he's wrong.
People have been thinking for years, and I think it's about time you try it for yourself.