Nope. The whole point of "Trusted" (more properly called "Treacherous") Computing is that you can't fool it because it requires access to the TPM hardware. Incidentally, this means virtualized Vista will not be capable of playing "protected" content unless the virtualization technology has a "hole" in it for the TPM, which probably means that the host environment would have to be "Trusted" as well. Unless I'm mistaken, it's probably also the mechanism by which the "lesser" versions of Vista disallow themselves from being virtualized.
You are not correct - newer intel macs no longer ship with TPM due to cost reasons
If you read the page you linked it's only assumed that that's the case, because the system no longer reports the presence of the TPM. If you read further, though, you see this:
Possible Caveat
A reader reported the case of a disappearing TPM after a firmware update (details here). I have yet to look into it. Other than looking at the I/O Registry (on somebody else's computers), I haven't examined these newer systems enough to be able to conclude if their alleged TPMs might have similarly "disappeared". If and when I do look and find something, I will update this page.
In other words, it's entirely possible that the TPM still exists, but is only hidden -- a situation that's considerably more sinister.
Ah, but what about the music you didn't by from the iTunes store, but ripped from CDs (or whatever)? How do you get that back off the iPod (in a supported way)?
(Note: I have 2 Macs and an iPod, and I'm getting rather tired of Apple, in effect, punishing me for being a loyal customer by deliberately restricting its software in order to make it difficult for me to keep them in sync. With all Apple's vaunted "usability," my iPod should copy everything back and forth and I should be able to use iSync between the two computers without paying a ransom for.Mac!)
Contrary to what someone mentioned, no, WMP does not automatically add DRM if you select the mp3 option.
You seem not to understand what the word "automatically" means. If you have to take some action -- such as selecting the MP3 option -- to prevent it, it's still automatic!
More importantly, if you're willing to buy new hardware in order to run OS X why wouldn't you be equally willing to buy new hardware in order to run Linux? It's possible to specifically pick a laptop that is fully compatible with Linux, you know!
To get the hardware that's right for them. Apple provides too few choices.
That's a good point. I'm about to replace my 3-year-old iBook with a Thinkpad X60 tablet. I would have gotten a Mac, but Apple doesn't make a tablet so I couldn't. I may very well try to run OS X on it anyway, though (and, given that I do own two Macs already, I have absolutely no moral qualms about doing so). It's not my fault Apple wouldn't build what I need.
To be fair.. Often Apple hardware has issues often. Just do a Google on airport express cards, too much thermal paste causing the hardware to get too hot to touch, high pitch whining (many people can't hear that, but I can) etc.
To be fair, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." If you want an anecdote, here's one: I've owned two Macs, and many non-Macs over the years. Listed in order of reliability, best to worst, they are as follows: home-built w/early FIC Athlon motherboard, iMac Core Duo, Thinkpad 560X, home-built w/Gigabyte 7VRXP motherboard, Compaq P4 laptop, iBook G4, refurbished Packard Bell 486, HP K6-2 laptop, Emachines K6-2 laptop.
Everything up to the Compaq I'd consider to have "good" reliability, the iBook (which nevertheless I'm using to type this on) I'd consider "fair," and the rest I'd consider "poor." Of course, once you account for the fact that the iBook has had, by far, the roughest life (I've carried it back and forth to college with me for the past 3 years, while the rest of the laptops tended to sit at home), I think its reliability has actually been pretty good. So, in general, I'd consider Apple machines to be some of the highest-quality out there, right up with IBM and building it myself.
Perhaps the benefit is that you know the hardware won't fail on you, and you know that you don't have to deal with Applecare's horrible service.
Applecare is at worst inconsistent, not uniformly "horrible." If it were, there wouldn't be people like me around, who had good experiences with it.
The fairest DRM is SonicStage. Letting you create unlimited copies with the latest version, de-DRM them etc.
Really? The Wikipedia article doesn't mention any of that. If what you say is true, why does it bother with DRM at all? (And speaking of "no DRM at all," only that is really the "fairest DRM!")
And what is wrong with iTunes? It has, by far, the fairest DRM.
Pardon my bluntness, but that's really no different than asking what's wrong with lethal injection because it's, by far, the least painful method of execution. But regardless of the method you're still dead, just as regardless of the DRM, you're still restricted.
You can always burn a CD, and re-import it.
Wrong! You can burn a CD and re-import it until Apple decides you can't. And that mere possibility is more than enough to make it entirely unacceptable.
Like you, I'm happy with my iMac. However, that does not mean I think Apple can do no wrong, and neither should it mean such for you.
Hey, ignoring the stupid law worked for Prohibition!
It just goes to show that there's a huge difference between some nominally illegal act being acceptable to a few people and being acceptable to nearly everyone. In the long run the DMCA cannot stand, because breaking it is indeed acceptable to nearly everyone.
PC players will always be crackable, if someone wants to spend the time to do it.
For very small values of "always," that is -- right up until the computers start implementing Trusted content paths, which will happen in a few months when Vista comes out. At that point, cracking the DRM could very well require looking at the innards of the TPM with an electron microscope.
That's easier said then done, sometimes -- for example, find me a reasonable alternative (in terms of size and weight) to the Thinkpad X60 tablet [with an Intel ipw3945] I ordered the other day. I can guarantee you such a thing does not exist.
But if they affect the brain in the same manner...
The question is, why is the child pornography illegal? If it's due to the harm caused to the child during production (which, AFAIK, is the usual argument), then how it affects the viewer's brain is irrelevant. If, on the other hand, it's illegal because of its effect on the viewer's brain... what actual crime has been committed?
However on a PC which has an integrated ethernet like Marvell Yukon or so, there is plenty of choice; plug in an ethernet expansion card or wireless adapter that DOES work, and you can still do what you wanted to do, even if you spent $4.50 extra on the motherboard for the privilege of said chipset in the first place.
I don't know about you, but I sure don't want a stupid dongle or PC-Card sticking out the side of my laptop, if I've got an otherwise-perfectly-good internal wireless chip!
The electric setups DO accellerate better, but then,,, they cost five times as much per-mile. As far as a "hybrid" goes, it would be more energy-efficnent to have a car with two gasoline engines {one big and one small} and switch the big one on and off accordingly.
No, you were talking about bicycles, so the only thing you can reasonably say is that it would be more efficient to have a bicycle with two gasoline engines, not a car.
In other words, you've missed my point, which is this: the fact that an electric motor might not make sense for a bicycle does not automatically mean it wouldn't make sense for a car, and none of your extrapolation can change that because it's not valid to assume they're the same!
That's not possible. The engine is connected to the wheels through a set of gears of fixed ratio, and either a clutch (manual transmission) or a torque converter (automatic transmission). For what you describe to occur, either those gears would have to be grinding out of sync (which means your transmission is horribly broken), your clutch is slipping and needs to be replaced, or your torque converter is leaking and needs to be replaced.
Like I said, I will let people in if they try to merge reasonably soon after noticing the obstruction. The people I won't let in are only the ones that zoom right up to the obstruction and then try to merge, after having had a half-mile warning.
Generally, at that point traffic is already at a crawl, so what "speeding up and tailgating" actually means is leaving 1 foot between me and the car in front of me, instead of 6 feet (which people will try to shove the corner of their car into).
Of course, you're right that I can't control the people behind me -- I wish they'd do the same, though, since it would finally teach the assholes to stop trying to cut in line!
I'm not talking about the people that creep slowly up the merging lane with their turn signal on; I'm talking about the ones that zoom up to the end without even trying to move over.
for example, when approaching a constriction, so many drivers go right to the end and try and force their way in - and it's not helped by people not letting adjacent lanes merge in good time before the obstruction.
Even more, it's not helped by people letting in the drivers who go to the end. Personally, I'll let people in when they try to merge soon after noticing the obstruction. But if they try to cut in at the end, I'll ride the previous car's bumper to prevent them from getting in, and give them the finger to boot! And if that makes me a bastard, that's fine with me.
Heh, I've noticed the same thing from the ground: the controlled-access part of GA 78 has exactly ONE curve, and that's exactly where the standing wave forms every rush hour. And you know what the worst part is? The curve is banked, so there's no legitimate reason to slow down for it!
Intel GPL'd its integrated graphics drivers recently; wouldn't you think it would release the code or specifications for the wireless chips used in its "Centrino" stuff too?
Seeing this result, I find it tough to believe that you can currently "improve" a gasoline engine by making it "a little bit electric".
Well duh, that's because you're trying to extrapolate from a bicycle!
What you need to realize is that cost, weight, energy usage, etc. don't all scale at the same rate. Adding a $200, 10 lb. motor to a $200, 20 lb. bike represents a 100% increase in cost and a 50% increase in weight. Adding a $2000, 300 lb. hybrid system to a $20000, 3000 lb. car represents a 10% increase in cost and a 10% increase in weight. See the difference?
Besides, one of the chief advantages of a hybrid system in a car is that the gasoline engine can be sized for the steady-state load instead of the peak load. In other words, a 20 mpg V-6 can be replaced with a 40 mpg I-4, for the same performance (because the I-4 gets supplemented by the electric motor).
If the cruise-control is on, the RPM's jump up to compensate (IIRC about 200~400rpm).
Unless your clutch is slipping, that doesn't make any sense. The engine speed depends on exactly two things: the wheel speed and the gear ratio. It can't vary randomly like that, because the transmission provides a direct mechanical linkage.
If you never do anything more / work a minute more than what is expected of you I would like to ask you if you tend to shop at stores that fulfill the simplest of obligations or the ones that have employees which go out of there way to help you?
Do you expect to pay more for shoes at one of those "go out of there[sic] way" stores? If so, then you've just proven the O.P.'s point. If not, then you're an idiot who expects to get something for nothing, which doesn't make any economic sense whatsoever.
There's nothing wrong with expecting an employee to go "above and beyond," but if it is expected then it becomes "normal" and ought to be written into the job description and accompanied by higher pay. It's only fair.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. The whole point of "Trusted" (more properly called "Treacherous") Computing is that you can't fool it because it requires access to the TPM hardware. Incidentally, this means virtualized Vista will not be capable of playing "protected" content unless the virtualization technology has a "hole" in it for the TPM, which probably means that the host environment would have to be "Trusted" as well. Unless I'm mistaken, it's probably also the mechanism by which the "lesser" versions of Vista disallow themselves from being virtualized.
If you read the page you linked it's only assumed that that's the case, because the system no longer reports the presence of the TPM. If you read further, though, you see this:
In other words, it's entirely possible that the TPM still exists, but is only hidden -- a situation that's considerably more sinister.
Ah, but what about the music you didn't by from the iTunes store, but ripped from CDs (or whatever)? How do you get that back off the iPod (in a supported way)?
(Note: I have 2 Macs and an iPod, and I'm getting rather tired of Apple, in effect, punishing me for being a loyal customer by deliberately restricting its software in order to make it difficult for me to keep them in sync. With all Apple's vaunted "usability," my iPod should copy everything back and forth and I should be able to use iSync between the two computers without paying a ransom for .Mac!)
You seem not to understand what the word "automatically" means. If you have to take some action -- such as selecting the MP3 option -- to prevent it, it's still automatic!
More importantly, if you're willing to buy new hardware in order to run OS X why wouldn't you be equally willing to buy new hardware in order to run Linux? It's possible to specifically pick a laptop that is fully compatible with Linux, you know!
That's a good point. I'm about to replace my 3-year-old iBook with a Thinkpad X60 tablet. I would have gotten a Mac, but Apple doesn't make a tablet so I couldn't. I may very well try to run OS X on it anyway, though (and, given that I do own two Macs already, I have absolutely no moral qualms about doing so). It's not my fault Apple wouldn't build what I need.
To be fair, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." If you want an anecdote, here's one: I've owned two Macs, and many non-Macs over the years. Listed in order of reliability, best to worst, they are as follows: home-built w/early FIC Athlon motherboard, iMac Core Duo, Thinkpad 560X, home-built w/Gigabyte 7VRXP motherboard, Compaq P4 laptop, iBook G4, refurbished Packard Bell 486, HP K6-2 laptop, Emachines K6-2 laptop.
Everything up to the Compaq I'd consider to have "good" reliability, the iBook (which nevertheless I'm using to type this on) I'd consider "fair," and the rest I'd consider "poor." Of course, once you account for the fact that the iBook has had, by far, the roughest life (I've carried it back and forth to college with me for the past 3 years, while the rest of the laptops tended to sit at home), I think its reliability has actually been pretty good. So, in general, I'd consider Apple machines to be some of the highest-quality out there, right up with IBM and building it myself.
Applecare is at worst inconsistent, not uniformly "horrible." If it were, there wouldn't be people like me around, who had good experiences with it.
Really? The Wikipedia article doesn't mention any of that. If what you say is true, why does it bother with DRM at all? (And speaking of "no DRM at all," only that is really the "fairest DRM!")
Pardon my bluntness, but that's really no different than asking what's wrong with lethal injection because it's, by far, the least painful method of execution. But regardless of the method you're still dead, just as regardless of the DRM, you're still restricted.
Wrong! You can burn a CD and re-import it until Apple decides you can't. And that mere possibility is more than enough to make it entirely unacceptable.
Like you, I'm happy with my iMac. However, that does not mean I think Apple can do no wrong, and neither should it mean such for you.
Hey, ignoring the stupid law worked for Prohibition!
It just goes to show that there's a huge difference between some nominally illegal act being acceptable to a few people and being acceptable to nearly everyone. In the long run the DMCA cannot stand, because breaking it is indeed acceptable to nearly everyone.
I was under the impression that DeCSS came with a key, rather than using an algorithm to brute-force the key.
For very small values of "always," that is -- right up until the computers start implementing Trusted content paths, which will happen in a few months when Vista comes out. At that point, cracking the DRM could very well require looking at the innards of the TPM with an electron microscope.
That's easier said then done, sometimes -- for example, find me a reasonable alternative (in terms of size and weight) to the Thinkpad X60 tablet [with an Intel ipw3945] I ordered the other day. I can guarantee you such a thing does not exist.
The question is, why is the child pornography illegal? If it's due to the harm caused to the child during production (which, AFAIK, is the usual argument), then how it affects the viewer's brain is irrelevant. If, on the other hand, it's illegal because of its effect on the viewer's brain... what actual crime has been committed?
I don't know about you, but I sure don't want a stupid dongle or PC-Card sticking out the side of my laptop, if I've got an otherwise-perfectly-good internal wireless chip!
No, you were talking about bicycles, so the only thing you can reasonably say is that it would be more efficient to have a bicycle with two gasoline engines, not a car.
In other words, you've missed my point, which is this: the fact that an electric motor might not make sense for a bicycle does not automatically mean it wouldn't make sense for a car, and none of your extrapolation can change that because it's not valid to assume they're the same!
That's not possible. The engine is connected to the wheels through a set of gears of fixed ratio, and either a clutch (manual transmission) or a torque converter (automatic transmission). For what you describe to occur, either those gears would have to be grinding out of sync (which means your transmission is horribly broken), your clutch is slipping and needs to be replaced, or your torque converter is leaking and needs to be replaced.
Like I said, I will let people in if they try to merge reasonably soon after noticing the obstruction. The people I won't let in are only the ones that zoom right up to the obstruction and then try to merge, after having had a half-mile warning.
Generally, at that point traffic is already at a crawl, so what "speeding up and tailgating" actually means is leaving 1 foot between me and the car in front of me, instead of 6 feet (which people will try to shove the corner of their car into).
Of course, you're right that I can't control the people behind me -- I wish they'd do the same, though, since it would finally teach the assholes to stop trying to cut in line!
I'm not talking about the people that creep slowly up the merging lane with their turn signal on; I'm talking about the ones that zoom up to the end without even trying to move over.
Even more, it's not helped by people letting in the drivers who go to the end. Personally, I'll let people in when they try to merge soon after noticing the obstruction. But if they try to cut in at the end, I'll ride the previous car's bumper to prevent them from getting in, and give them the finger to boot! And if that makes me a bastard, that's fine with me.
Heh, I've noticed the same thing from the ground: the controlled-access part of GA 78 has exactly ONE curve, and that's exactly where the standing wave forms every rush hour. And you know what the worst part is? The curve is banked, so there's no legitimate reason to slow down for it!
Intel GPL'd its integrated graphics drivers recently; wouldn't you think it would release the code or specifications for the wireless chips used in its "Centrino" stuff too?
Well duh, that's because you're trying to extrapolate from a bicycle!
What you need to realize is that cost, weight, energy usage, etc. don't all scale at the same rate. Adding a $200, 10 lb. motor to a $200, 20 lb. bike represents a 100% increase in cost and a 50% increase in weight. Adding a $2000, 300 lb. hybrid system to a $20000, 3000 lb. car represents a 10% increase in cost and a 10% increase in weight. See the difference?
Besides, one of the chief advantages of a hybrid system in a car is that the gasoline engine can be sized for the steady-state load instead of the peak load. In other words, a 20 mpg V-6 can be replaced with a 40 mpg I-4, for the same performance (because the I-4 gets supplemented by the electric motor).
Unless your clutch is slipping, that doesn't make any sense. The engine speed depends on exactly two things: the wheel speed and the gear ratio. It can't vary randomly like that, because the transmission provides a direct mechanical linkage.
Do you expect to pay more for shoes at one of those "go out of there[sic] way" stores? If so, then you've just proven the O.P.'s point. If not, then you're an idiot who expects to get something for nothing, which doesn't make any economic sense whatsoever.
There's nothing wrong with expecting an employee to go "above and beyond," but if it is expected then it becomes "normal" and ought to be written into the job description and accompanied by higher pay. It's only fair.
Ah, so it was sooner rather than later! : )