"The point of comparison would be AMDs quad core CPUs which were designed to be quad core from the ground up. The integration between all four cores is not only faster, it is more efficient. That, plus the fact that AMDs dual and quad core CPUs will be utilizing independent 2GHz point-to-point interfaces rather than sharing/flooding a single 1066- or 1333 MHz bus should translate into vastly better performance."
If any of this is true then it will be shown in benchmarks. Until then, the internal construction should only matter to those who make it.
"...All of those extra transistors draw extra power, and generate extra heat. They also drive up the cost for no good reason."
Those few extra transistors don't matter since they are dwarfed by other aspects of the part. They also don't drive up cost because their impact to die size is small. On the other hand, the design cuts die size in half resulting in higher yields and lower costs. Bringing in development of a true quad-core design on the older process adds additional cost as well. One would have to believe that Intel's decision factors in costs.
"Don't get me wrong, Intel's quad-core will be neat, but they're basically taking their existing parts and glueing them together and calling them something new."
They are something new.
"...and Intel has been so far behind AMD that they felt that they just couldn't wait."
That's speculation on your part. Intel doesn't have integrated memory controllers so their design tradeoffs are different.
"The apt metaphor would be to compare a Pentium D (two single cores glued together) to an Athlon 64 X2 or Core 2 Duo (CPUs designed from the ground up to be dual core)."
The approach is the same but the Pentium D cores were inferior to AMD's whereas the Core 2 cores are more competitive.
"Now sure, some market droid at Intel has come out and said that the end-users don't care whether it's dual-die or single-die, as long as it's four cores. And on that point he is generally correct."
Yes, he is.
"But what the end-users will care about is overall performance, cost, power draw, and heat dissipation, and all of those things should be significantly better on a single-die than on a dual-die."
That remains to be shown. What constitutes "significantly"? 5%? 10%? Won't be that different.
"The end users will end up caring about the benefits that come along with having a single-die, and it will make a difference."
No they won't. Early adopters will want the latest thing. The others won't buy it. One die or two doesn't really make that much difference.
Then I assume you won't buy an iPod. Apple is at the forefront of DRM after all.
I don't have any music that contains DRM, either, but I do own an iPod since I know it won't change any of the music that I currently own. I know the Zune won't, either, despite the hysteria here to the contrary. In fact, I'm most certain that there is no product on the market, nor has there ever been, that does as you suggest. I maintain backups anyway as I'm sure you do considering the value.
If it sounds that way then you must be listening to uninformed people. I wouldn't buy one either but I'm not going to lie about how it works or discourage others from buying one based on false information. I wouldn't buy music from iTMS either.
Not exactly. DRM would be applied to a temporary share that one of your Zune might receive from the other should YOU choose to do that (and it's even possible). Of course, why would you since you could just as easily install a non-DRM version on both in the first place. If you prefer not to have a temporary DRM'ed version on one of the players you may simply opt out of the addtional feature that Zune offers (that no one else does) and all your music will remain DRM-free. It is through your explicit action that DRM gets applied to an additional, temporary file.
"...Most videos on myspace are not HOSTED by myspace..."
Not true. From the article:
"Just to be clear, there is no double counting, according to comScore. MySpace's figures do not include YouTube videos viewed on MySpace. The views are only of the site's own videos viewed either on their property or embedded across the Web on blogs or on distribution partners. So, YouTube's 649 million video streams count the videos viewed on YouTube as well as blogs that might have embedded a YouTube video."
"Also, most videos put on a myspace page are PLAYED each time someone visits the page..."
No they aren't. MySpace videos are in a separate section off a person's page. They do not play automatically any more than a YouTube video does.
"...and I (unfortunately) know several people with SEVERAL videos on their page (one girl in particular with 5 videos)."
Perhaps, but those are no more likely to be MySpace videos than anything else.
"So these statistics are kind of BS..."
Maybe, but not for any reasons you say. The only BS here is your uninformed opinion.
"Just to be clear, there is no double counting, according to comScore. MySpace's figures do not include YouTube videos viewed on MySpace. The views are only of the site's own videos viewed either on their property or embedded across the Web on blogs or on distribution partners. So, YouTube's 649 million video streams count the videos viewed on YouTube as well as blogs that might have embedded a YouTube video."
" Just to be clear, there is no double counting, according to comScore. MySpace's figures do not include YouTube videos viewed on MySpace. The views are only of the site's own videos viewed either on their property or embedded across the Web on blogs or on distribution partners. So, YouTube's 649 million video streams count the videos viewed on YouTube as well as blogs that might have embedded a YouTube video."
"Also, it doens't not apply DRM to your non-DRM music like some other systems do."
I assume you are referring to Zune. Zune does NOT apply DRM to your non-DRM music. It applies DRM in order to time-limit music shared to other Zunes. The music on your Zune is not DRM'ed. It's amazing not just how people make up things they don't know but how such myths are perpetuated. Repeat a lie often enough and it will be the same as fact.
Just what other device applies DRM to non-DRMed music? None.
It's called maturity and leadership. Yes, plenty of engineers/programmers want to participate in such processes. They consider it part of doing their job well.
Nothing's worse? Engineers haven't cornered the market on hardheadedness. I can think of a lot of things worse than something as simple as one's opinion.
Are you suggesting that Windows and Linux boxes max out at 1600x1200? If so, you are as stupid as the author that you criticise. My Windows box has a single monitor that provides 3820x2400 resolution. Too bad the mac doesn't support that display since it's the ultimate for photo editing.
"Yes, you can buy expensive software and spend some time calibrating Windows for that, and with a little more effort you can get Linux there too, but why bother when the Mac does it out of the box?"
Because it's not the operating system that's used to deal with images, it's applications that run on top of it, so as long as the CMYK support is there it won't be a limitation for the user. Professional photographers are likely to invest in calibration hardware and software whether they use a PC or a mac so it's a wash. They will be using Photoshop in either case.
"Until MS & Linux developers understand that, Mac will remain king."
According to you. Plenty of professional photographers use Windows because native CMYK in the platform itself isn't the critical factor that you claim it is. No photo pro is going to do without Photoshop and CMYK support is there in either version.
"There's no "freedom" in taking away other peoples' freedoms."
Once you convince RMS of that, we can all taken advantage of the one truly free license, the BSD license.
The fact is that you are wrong there. We are all more free by denying others the freedom to deny ours. You are more free thanks to the fact that your neighbor isn't free to murder you. Anarchy isn't freedom.
"...but at the same time you want to take away those very same rights on my code from others."
No he doesn't. The rights to your code have already been granted to others. Nothing he does can possibly change that nor does he or anyone else want to.
"You're just annoyed because we're going to force you to extend the same respect to others that has been shown to you, and you don't want to do that."
Glad to see you recognize that you are forcing your requirements on others, not the other way around. However, if the subject is DRM and specifically Tivo-ization you are wrong again. Tivo gladly complied with the terms of the GPL and released its code in compliance with the license. It shared its work just as you shared yours.
"It doesn't matter if you built the hardware."
It certainly does. The hardware has no GPL content and is not bound by the viral nature of its license. The software is released under the GPL but the hardware is not governed by it.
"You can't use my code to do it, and you have no right to claim that my code belongs to you."
Under GPLv2 he sure can because you said he could. No one ever claimed your code belongs to him.
"...Both DRM and patents threaten this, hence the new clauses in v3."
The problem with patents isn't that they threaten GPL software, it's that the patent holders may well be companies providing enormous support for GPL projects. Patent clauses may threaten to end that support.
DRM, aka Tivo-ization, does nothing to threaten "empowering the end-user with the option of maintaining or improving the software they're using". The software itself remains free, so maintain and improve it to your heart's content.
"Again, the GPL is not designed to suit coders, distributors or anybody else but end-users. How can people still fail to grasp this very simple concept?"
The end-users that the GPL targets ARE coders. The others won't care whether they get source code or not. Specifically, RMS is the end user the GPL envisions. Although what you say is true, it seems you're the one that fails to grasp the concept.
"So if they do care about the "lusers", and they have a better way, let's hear it."
"It seems perfectly clear to me that he intends redistribution through ripping the CD and P2P."
No, he only says he doesn't mind if you do. It cannot be his primary means of distribution because he produced a CD in the first place. If he wanted to distribute via P2P then he would have done so himself (but then his trojan to entrap the MS DRM wouldn't exist, would it?). IF he sells me a CD then expects me to rip it and sistribute it so that he can obtain income through donations, then he should pay me for my effort.
"I disagree with your views on the purpose of DRM. DRM' purpose is to make exercising fair use so difficult that the average user will just not bother."
Perhaps, but this discussion is NOT of DRM in general but in the use of DRM in this specific instance. DRM in this case cannot effect fair use because fair use is what causes it to come into existence in the first place. DRM here is used to prevent the redistribution of files created through fair use.
"Furthermore, it is not the role of the media player to decide what level of copyright protection the artist desires."
Yes, and it doesn't. DRM in this instance prevents redistribution of files created under fair use. It is the user who decides whether the DRM is applied, not the media player. It is an option.
"If the artist (or in most cases, the distributor) decides that DRM in necessary for restricting distribution, then it is their responsibility to apply said DRM."
They can't with CDs since that would make the format incompatible with the redbook standard. The original poster specified the use of CD in his original strawman. If the artist in this case distributed files online (in order to have the DRM option) then we wouldn't be having a discussion of what WMP might do, would we? WMP can't know.
An artist has no ability to restrict a consumer's fair use rights and that includes encoding his files in any form he sees fit. If that includes using containers employing DRM to restrict use of those files then he can do that. It is the consumer's choice, not the artist's, and no artist has any moral or legal complaint when his customer takes steps to ensure that his fair use files remain limited to only his use. The argument is absurd.
I wasn't aware that the XBox360 could support external hard drives or that swapping the optional ones was a realistic option. I can certainly see the appeal of doing what you say, I just see technical hurdles in the way. I hate the popup keyboards you have to use to enter personal information for purchasing or to do searches:(
The original poster never described how his content was to be redistributed. All he said was that he had produced content on a CD, therefore there is no basis to claim that he intended redistribution through ripping the CD and P2P. Even if he did intend that, it is NOT the obligation of the end user to do so nor is it the obligation of the end user to use tools that the artist specifies. Distribution is up to the artist, not the uesers, so claiming that the distribution chain is somehow interrupted is completely bogus. If users desire to rip and upload, they would use tools that didn't implement DRM (or turn off the feature in WMP11).
The ENTIRE purpose of the DRM option in WMP11 is so that users, when they invoke their fair use right to rip a CD, produce files that cannot be inadvertently redistributed in violation of copyright. The user may opt out of that feature by turning it off or using another tool. It is not an undesirable restriction placed on the user, it's a feature that a user may find useful.
This voluntary form of DRM is intended to help copyright holders and help end users by ultimately helping limit unauthorized distribution, yet a "supposed" artist criticises anyway just as people complain about the absurd issue with Zune and the Creative Commons license. People are just finding a reason to complain about Microsoft.
Frankly I think this kind of DRM is a great idea especially if it can be disabled. I won't use it myself but I can see why others might.
I'm highly annoyed by the anemic 20GB hard drive that the XBox360 offers. Can't do much content with that. Interfacing to an online store with a game controller, while possible, would be a miserable experience (though not as bad as with an Apple remote!).
Apple was the first to integrate an online store with the jukebox. Others integrated the jukebox and player. There were no online stores at that time.
I suppose if you define "Get It" by what Apple does you'll be right every time. Isn't that how it's done here?
Apple was not the first to do an mp3 player nor the first to tie an mp3 player to a jukebox app. Apple was not the first to integrate video capabilities into a portable media player.
Apple was the first to develop an online content store integrated with such devices. That's it. I watch my portable video content and listen to my music without the "help" of any online store.
Slashdot Mirror
"The point of comparison would be AMDs quad core CPUs which were designed to be quad core from the ground up. The integration between all four cores is not only faster, it is more efficient. That, plus the fact that AMDs dual and quad core CPUs will be utilizing independent 2GHz point-to-point interfaces rather than sharing/flooding a single 1066- or 1333 MHz bus should translate into vastly better performance."
If any of this is true then it will be shown in benchmarks. Until then, the internal construction should only matter to those who make it.
"...All of those extra transistors draw extra power, and generate extra heat. They also drive up the cost for no good reason."
Those few extra transistors don't matter since they are dwarfed by other aspects of the part. They also don't drive up cost because their impact to die size is small. On the other hand, the design cuts die size in half resulting in higher yields and lower costs. Bringing in development of a true quad-core design on the older process adds additional cost as well. One would have to believe that Intel's decision factors in costs.
"Don't get me wrong, Intel's quad-core will be neat, but they're basically taking their existing parts and glueing them together and calling them something new."
They are something new.
"...and Intel has been so far behind AMD that they felt that they just couldn't wait."
That's speculation on your part. Intel doesn't have integrated memory controllers so their design tradeoffs are different.
"The apt metaphor would be to compare a Pentium D (two single cores glued together) to an Athlon 64 X2 or Core 2 Duo (CPUs designed from the ground up to be dual core)."
The approach is the same but the Pentium D cores were inferior to AMD's whereas the Core 2 cores are more competitive.
"Now sure, some market droid at Intel has come out and said that the end-users don't care whether it's dual-die or single-die, as long as it's four cores. And on that point he is generally correct."
Yes, he is.
"But what the end-users will care about is overall performance, cost, power draw, and heat dissipation, and all of those things should be significantly better on a single-die than on a dual-die."
That remains to be shown. What constitutes "significantly"? 5%? 10%? Won't be that different.
"The end users will end up caring about the benefits that come along with having a single-die, and it will make a difference."
No they won't. Early adopters will want the latest thing. The others won't buy it. One die or two doesn't really make that much difference.
It's not the same to Intel but it shouldn't matter to you. All that matters is cost, heat and performance.
Then I assume you won't buy an iPod. Apple is at the forefront of DRM after all.
I don't have any music that contains DRM, either, but I do own an iPod since I know it won't change any of the music that I currently own. I know the Zune won't, either, despite the hysteria here to the contrary. In fact, I'm most certain that there is no product on the market, nor has there ever been, that does as you suggest. I maintain backups anyway as I'm sure you do considering the value.
If it sounds that way then you must be listening to uninformed people. I wouldn't buy one either but I'm not going to lie about how it works or discourage others from buying one based on false information. I wouldn't buy music from iTMS either.
Not exactly. DRM would be applied to a temporary share that one of your Zune might receive from the other should YOU choose to do that (and it's even possible). Of course, why would you since you could just as easily install a non-DRM version on both in the first place. If you prefer not to have a temporary DRM'ed version on one of the players you may simply opt out of the addtional feature that Zune offers (that no one else does) and all your music will remain DRM-free. It is through your explicit action that DRM gets applied to an additional, temporary file.
How about you look it up for me? Technical details of such obscure devices as this are hard to come by.
"...Most videos on myspace are not HOSTED by myspace..."
Not true. From the article:
"Just to be clear, there is no double counting, according to comScore. MySpace's figures do not include YouTube videos viewed on MySpace. The views are only of the site's own videos viewed either on their property or embedded across the Web on blogs or on distribution partners. So, YouTube's 649 million video streams count the videos viewed on YouTube as well as blogs that might have embedded a YouTube video."
"Also, most videos put on a myspace page are PLAYED each time someone visits the page..."
No they aren't. MySpace videos are in a separate section off a person's page. They do not play automatically any more than a YouTube video does.
"...and I (unfortunately) know several people with SEVERAL videos on their page (one girl in particular with 5 videos)."
Perhaps, but those are no more likely to be MySpace videos than anything else.
"So these statistics are kind of BS..."
Maybe, but not for any reasons you say. The only BS here is your uninformed opinion.
RTFA
"Just to be clear, there is no double counting, according to comScore. MySpace's figures do not include YouTube videos viewed on MySpace. The views are only of the site's own videos viewed either on their property or embedded across the Web on blogs or on distribution partners. So, YouTube's 649 million video streams count the videos viewed on YouTube as well as blogs that might have embedded a YouTube video."
so much for insightful. from the article:
" Just to be clear, there is no double counting, according to comScore. MySpace's figures do not include YouTube videos viewed on MySpace. The views are only of the site's own videos viewed either on their property or embedded across the Web on blogs or on distribution partners. So, YouTube's 649 million video streams count the videos viewed on YouTube as well as blogs that might have embedded a YouTube video."
"Also, it doens't not apply DRM to your non-DRM music like some other systems do."
I assume you are referring to Zune. Zune does NOT apply DRM to your non-DRM music. It applies DRM in order to time-limit music shared to other Zunes. The music on your Zune is not DRM'ed. It's amazing not just how people make up things they don't know but how such myths are perpetuated. Repeat a lie often enough and it will be the same as fact.
Just what other device applies DRM to non-DRMed music? None.
"They want to maintain their monopoly status and are unwilling to change."
Who has monopoly status? I think you're mistaken on this one.
"As for DRM protected content for $1 a song, the protection limits my ability to move to a new ipod every year without loosing [sic] music."
No it doesn't. The DRM limits the number of computers that can play the content. iPods aren't limited.
It's called maturity and leadership. Yes, plenty of engineers/programmers want to participate in such processes. They consider it part of doing their job well.
Nothing's worse? Engineers haven't cornered the market on hardheadedness. I can think of a lot of things worse than something as simple as one's opinion.
Are you suggesting that Windows and Linux boxes max out at 1600x1200? If so, you are as stupid as the author that you criticise. My Windows box has a single monitor that provides 3820x2400 resolution. Too bad the mac doesn't support that display since it's the ultimate for photo editing.
"Yes, you can buy expensive software and spend some time calibrating Windows for that, and with a little more effort you can get Linux there too, but why bother when the Mac does it out of the box?"
Because it's not the operating system that's used to deal with images, it's applications that run on top of it, so as long as the CMYK support is there it won't be a limitation for the user. Professional photographers are likely to invest in calibration hardware and software whether they use a PC or a mac so it's a wash. They will be using Photoshop in either case.
"Until MS & Linux developers understand that, Mac will remain king."
According to you. Plenty of professional photographers use Windows because native CMYK in the platform itself isn't the critical factor that you claim it is. No photo pro is going to do without Photoshop and CMYK support is there in either version.
"There's no "freedom" in taking away other peoples' freedoms."
Once you convince RMS of that, we can all taken advantage of the one truly free license, the BSD license.
The fact is that you are wrong there. We are all more free by denying others the freedom to deny ours. You are more free thanks to the fact that your neighbor isn't free to murder you. Anarchy isn't freedom.
"...but at the same time you want to take away those very same rights on my code from others."
No he doesn't. The rights to your code have already been granted to others. Nothing he does can possibly change that nor does he or anyone else want to.
"You're just annoyed because we're going to force you to extend the same respect to others that has been shown to you, and you don't want to do that."
Glad to see you recognize that you are forcing your requirements on others, not the other way around. However, if the subject is DRM and specifically Tivo-ization you are wrong again. Tivo gladly complied with the terms of the GPL and released its code in compliance with the license. It shared its work just as you shared yours.
"It doesn't matter if you built the hardware."
It certainly does. The hardware has no GPL content and is not bound by the viral nature of its license. The software is released under the GPL but the hardware is not governed by it.
"You can't use my code to do it, and you have no right to claim that my code belongs to you."
Under GPLv2 he sure can because you said he could. No one ever claimed your code belongs to him.
"...Both DRM and patents threaten this, hence the new clauses in v3."
The problem with patents isn't that they threaten GPL software, it's that the patent holders may well be companies providing enormous support for GPL projects. Patent clauses may threaten to end that support.
DRM, aka Tivo-ization, does nothing to threaten "empowering the end-user with the option of maintaining or improving the software they're using". The software itself remains free, so maintain and improve it to your heart's content.
"Again, the GPL is not designed to suit coders, distributors or anybody else but end-users. How can people still fail to grasp this very simple concept?"
The end-users that the GPL targets ARE coders. The others won't care whether they get source code or not. Specifically, RMS is the end user the GPL envisions. Although what you say is true, it seems you're the one that fails to grasp the concept.
"So if they do care about the "lusers", and they have a better way, let's hear it."
We did.
"If they don't like the license, don't use it."
Yes, that's what they said.
It's not rape if consent is given.
"It seems perfectly clear to me that he intends redistribution through ripping the CD and P2P."
No, he only says he doesn't mind if you do. It cannot be his primary means of distribution because he produced a CD in the first place. If he wanted to distribute via P2P then he would have done so himself (but then his trojan to entrap the MS DRM wouldn't exist, would it?). IF he sells me a CD then expects me to rip it and sistribute it so that he can obtain income through donations, then he should pay me for my effort.
"I disagree with your views on the purpose of DRM. DRM' purpose is to make exercising fair use so difficult that the average user will just not bother."
Perhaps, but this discussion is NOT of DRM in general but in the use of DRM in this specific instance. DRM in this case cannot effect fair use because fair use is what causes it to come into existence in the first place. DRM here is used to prevent the redistribution of files created through fair use.
"Furthermore, it is not the role of the media player to decide what level of copyright protection the artist desires."
Yes, and it doesn't. DRM in this instance prevents redistribution of files created under fair use. It is the user who decides whether the DRM is applied, not the media player. It is an option.
"If the artist (or in most cases, the distributor) decides that DRM in necessary for restricting distribution, then it is their responsibility to apply said DRM."
They can't with CDs since that would make the format incompatible with the redbook standard. The original poster specified the use of CD in his original strawman. If the artist in this case distributed files online (in order to have the DRM option) then we wouldn't be having a discussion of what WMP might do, would we? WMP can't know.
An artist has no ability to restrict a consumer's fair use rights and that includes encoding his files in any form he sees fit. If that includes using containers employing DRM to restrict use of those files then he can do that. It is the consumer's choice, not the artist's, and no artist has any moral or legal complaint when his customer takes steps to ensure that his fair use files remain limited to only his use. The argument is absurd.
I wasn't aware that the XBox360 could support external hard drives or that swapping the optional ones was a realistic option. I can certainly see the appeal of doing what you say, I just see technical hurdles in the way. I hate the popup keyboards you have to use to enter personal information for purchasing or to do searches :(
The original poster never described how his content was to be redistributed. All he said was that he had produced content on a CD, therefore there is no basis to claim that he intended redistribution through ripping the CD and P2P. Even if he did intend that, it is NOT the obligation of the end user to do so nor is it the obligation of the end user to use tools that the artist specifies. Distribution is up to the artist, not the uesers, so claiming that the distribution chain is somehow interrupted is completely bogus. If users desire to rip and upload, they would use tools that didn't implement DRM (or turn off the feature in WMP11).
The ENTIRE purpose of the DRM option in WMP11 is so that users, when they invoke their fair use right to rip a CD, produce files that cannot be inadvertently redistributed in violation of copyright. The user may opt out of that feature by turning it off or using another tool. It is not an undesirable restriction placed on the user, it's a feature that a user may find useful.
This voluntary form of DRM is intended to help copyright holders and help end users by ultimately helping limit unauthorized distribution, yet a "supposed" artist criticises anyway just as people complain about the absurd issue with Zune and the Creative Commons license. People are just finding a reason to complain about Microsoft.
Frankly I think this kind of DRM is a great idea especially if it can be disabled. I won't use it myself but I can see why others might.
I'm highly annoyed by the anemic 20GB hard drive that the XBox360 offers. Can't do much content with that. Interfacing to an online store with a game controller, while possible, would be a miserable experience (though not as bad as with an Apple remote!).
Then Apple doesn't "Get It" with the mac or OS X and Microsoft does.
Apple was the first to integrate an online store with the jukebox. Others integrated the jukebox and player. There were no online stores at that time.
I suppose if you define "Get It" by what Apple does you'll be right every time. Isn't that how it's done here?
Apple was not the first to do an mp3 player nor the first to tie an mp3 player to a jukebox app.
Apple was not the first to integrate video capabilities into a portable media player.
Apple was the first to develop an online content store integrated with such devices. That's it. I watch my portable video content and listen to my music without the "help" of any online store.