No matter what "killed" you, if you end up burning in a giant fireball, it's pretty pointless as to exactly how you died before that.
That's an unfortunate line of thinking that is probably the type of thinking that contributed to NASA's reduced quality controls over the years.
The report specifically discusses expanding the "survival envelope". Under this, more thorough, line of thinking one tries to solve all solvable problems, so in future accidents the chance of survival is improved.
Yes they where too high and traveling too fast to survive with any known technology other then a complete entry vehicle, but if they where a little bit lower and a little bit slower they could have survived if this reports recommendations where already in place. Without these recommendations, just the loss of cabin pressure would likely kill future astronaut, fireball or no.
f
If a national speed limit was set at 25 mph (and strictly enforced) then the number of traffic fatalities would almost certainly drop dramatically - not because of reduced frequency of accidents but because the accidents that did occur would be less severe.
Yes, but hand gun deaths would make a sharp rise.
Re:Welcome to capitalism
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
That would be a good argument, except the widely touted costs of research and development that pharmaceutical companies offer to justify their high prices are actually factors of two or more smaller than their gargantuan marketing budgets! When's the last time you've heard a mega-pharm complain:
We'd like to offer our product cheaper, but we have to recoup the tremendous costs of those sexy celebrity voice-overs exulting the horrible digestive and sexual dysfunction side-effects our drugs cause.
It's a silly argument to say they are charging prices for drugs to pay for the price of advertising. Advertisings sole purpose is to maximize the profit of the product. Not the otherway around. No company smart enough to be profatable will "loose" money on marketing only to scramble to cover those loses with a change in drug prices.
The prices are dictated by the market, the research or licensing investments are also dictaed by the market, the advertising budgets are dictated by the relitive profit of a given product and an estimate on the additional sales generated by advertising. Although some companies may make a mistake on over advertising most companies do not spend more on advertising then the revinue that andvertising generates.
There may be a problem with the way drug compaines invest in research, but ill considered arguments (published or not) only destract from that issue.
Video games, like every product on the planet, are *for* who buys them, and right now adults buy video games. The average age of all video gamers is above 21. So I'd have to say that your statement is exactly untrue.
I think the gaming community is getting older. Games are starting to market more and more to older men. This is a good thing in most respects as this will lead to gaming becoming a more legitimate art form and communication tool. Games are getting more mature, starting to address more complicated issues then weather a white block will fall out of bounds. Some times the topics will be uninteresting to some people. For most people they are in a faze that is a bit to graphic or literal for their taste.
As with any mass media it is definitely wise for parents to make a conscious choice as to what games are appropriate for children. Once movies could be seen by anyone, now some are better for adults. Once cartoons were a kids genre now adult teamed anime is either uninteresting or inappropriate for children.
In other words it is not meaningful to say that the game industry is not doing a good job for kids. That concept assumes that kids are the only audience. It is the view of the audience that must change.
Perhaps it's time to start taking those ratings on the box more seriously. Perhaps it's time to get a better rating system. But it is completely futile to try to contain video games in a kids only entertainment format, as it has been futile in every instance before. The world is not kid safe, and thinking that it can be made so is unsafe for your children.
It seems like the software industry spends so much time thinking about the losses due to piracy they forget what those numbers really mean. You see quotes for billions of dollars lost for the industry as a hole.
I'd just like to stop for a moment to remind everyone in the software business here that these losses are imaginary. Not everyone who is cheating a software license would have bought the software to begin with. In fact we don't know how small a percentage of software theft results in real dolor loss. Since the product itself does not cost money per unit, and distribution costs are being paid by the crackers the maker of the software is not experiencing true losses.
Just keep this whole "look how much money we're loosing" shit in check, because when you piss off paying customers to the point of not wanting to buy your products then you are loosing real money not imaginary money.
It reminds me of the cartoon where the bear catches 5 fish then drops them all to catch one more.
I'm really getting tired of people not thinking problems all the way through these days.
I thought this was an over the top toy at first, but it's turned out to be invaluable. It's about the size of the original Sony cassette Walkman. I.e. smaller then a CD. It's thick and a little heavy, and doesn't come with a belt carrier or other protection. I can lay hours of tivo recording (from my 300 hours modified tivo) and whenever I'm board or waiting in line or traveling, I can just watch a show. Or if I prefer listen to anyone of the songs from my entire album collection. And it's fantastic for capturing video stuff to transfer to the computer, or from the computer to video cassette, or to watch on a T.V.
Also, you got a copy of the Sopranos last night and your friend missed it. No problem just bring it on the archos, you can view it on a normal tv, on the archos, or transfer the file to his computer for him to watch it later.
After the archos itself turned out to be so helpful I decided to get the camera attachment, and I'm very happy with that as well. You can record ~hundred hours on the 80gb drive at slightly better then DV quality (for the file, the single ship CCD is a little week in low light). And it doubles as a 3.3 mega pixel still camera with an amazing amount of storage space. Also the camera comes with a carrying case which is more or less necessary because the lack of protection of the viewing surface.
The three cons for me are price, battery life (given it can't be replaced in transit), and lack of protection. Also the time it takes for the camera to take a still picture is a little sluggish, but manageable.
That's a lot like, say, translating the movie into another language, selling it, and not paying lucasfilm. Sure, that analogy isn't perfect but legally I think that's how its going to be seen.
The analogy isn't perfect in exactly the way that makes it illegal. Translating or transferring of media with no intent to parody is fully subject to copyright restrictions. While parodying in any way provides far use access to the material in any and all forms, weather or not it makes money is immaterial to that freedom.
The real downside of this is that you can't really "sample parody" anything anymore without permission and the dollars to back it up. Either you create a whole new work with no samples like "Spaceballs" or you're kinda out of luck.
According to copyright law, this is exactly not correct. As mentioned elsewhere copying material for parody is specifically protected. That is to mean without limitation. The 'new' work must qualify as a parody, but once it does, that work can contain as much or as little of the original material as the creator wishes.
There have been cases where no aspect of the original work has been changed at all, only the context in which it was shown, and that was considered enough to warrant parody status.
On the other had if you are speaking pragmatically and not literally, then you may be right in that once a large Copyright concern becomes interested in defending, justly or unjustly, a perceived copyright infringement the attack may have such force as to cause legal, fair use, of the material to be impractical. Where this happens it is very dangerous to the public interest, and the freedom of speech.
I saw the Star Wars one man show here in Chicago last year or so and he charged money, but he didn't use anything other than his body to do his act. So he was completely free to charge. In fact a lawsuit by Lucas would have (all things being equal) been lost.
I would also differ with you in this opinion. A one man performance of the original material, is a transfer of media or adaptation. Without intent to parody this is actually copyright infringement just as much as writing a book based on Star Wars would be.
Personally I find this more interesting then the article sence they expose what they are doing. As well as addressing the multi-primary capture issues as well.
It is sad that the graphics options for Macs are so limited. It's the only reason that my company hasn't switched to Mac yet. The performance of the latest G5s as powerful as they are just can't compare with Quadro, or Fire level graphics cards on PCs. What's the need you may say? Well if I'm not mistaken aren't Macs supposed to be the graphics computers. And the entire interface is now implemented in OpenGL, so not only do I get essential acceleration for applications such as Maya, but the interface for all my applications is as fast as it can be.
One day Mac will have a pro graphics card option. On that day, I switch to Mac.
They're going to lose all the developer mindshare they've fought the past 8 years for.
This is the point of view I most agree with. This is a startlingly bad move by RedHat, and I too have already moved to Suse. I am going through the pains of learning the quirks of a new system, and once I'm comfortable there will be nothing RedHad can do to win me back.
P.S. I own a small company and guess what Enterprise OS flavor is at the bottom of my list for evaluation.
I think the exciting thing about this is that we will finally have the possibility to multipipe our graphics systems. A gamer can have a very good system with one card installed, but a graphics workstation might have 4 installed. Not going to 4 monitors as others have mentioned, but all splitting the load for one display for 4 times the performance.
As it is I have to have 4 full machines and a wicked fast network to do the same.
I personally have never owned, and I have never known anyone who owned, a non-disposable Kodak camera. Not that I debate that they exist, but rather that we should all just keep this announcement in perspective. A film company announcing that it will stop selling cameras is like a shipping company saying it's going to stop selling ships. Much more note worthy is that they were trying to sell them in the first place.
This is what the financial blokes refer to as a false indicator, especially if anyone reads the decline of film into it. Kodak has never been good at selling cameras (well perhaps it the 50s and 60s for a bit). Getting out of that business is a good move for them regardless of the viability of the film market.
Over the past few years all things Asian have been building up popularity here in L.A. As witnessed by the growth of such new magazines as "Giant Robot". Perhaps we're moving towards Blade Runner world.
I for one am all for it. The Asian design since from Hong Kong and Japan is quite good, and it's time for them to stop regurgitating western culture and come into there own. There also seems to be a ground swell of radical art coming out of Japan. I read this as retaliation against a conformist culture. It's very exciting, I think we are in for ride the equivalent of America in the 60s.
Matrix Reloaded was not entered for Oscar consideration to avoid the two movies competing against each other.
Matrix Revolutions was the only one in consideration for the long list.
It's exclusion from the list in favor of T3 is very odd to me, as a visual effects professional. "Revolutions" was clearly superior in number and quality of effects. IMHO
I understand what it is intended to do. It tries to make infringement as difficult as it can while allowing as much Fair Use as it can.
No this is exactly opposite of what the DRM system I worked on does. This is why I say I've explained poorly. Our system erred on the side of granting access not the other way around, such is the requirement of Fair Use. What it provided was an easy way to work legally with copyrighted materials when fair use was not applicable, and an audit trail when it was. But *NO* restrictions were ever applied when fair use was in effect.
The rest of your post is easily refuted by "iTunes". You may call it illegal, but Apple is making money with it. And I see no successful challenge on the horizon to their blocking of fair use.
I apologize. I apparently lack the skills to explain to you what a user based DRM solution would do for everyone involved in this dispute.
I hope you, and people who feel like you win. I truly do. But the battle is almost over, and the camp you represent has not even shown up on the raider yet. RIAA is winning cases, Apple and MS have implemented Restrictive DRM, and InterTrust has announced a trusted computing standard that will seal consumers fate with in the next five years.
Napster lost everything because no court believed that fair use was a valid argument to allow mass distribution of music. And Napster hired some of the best lawyers in the world.
Instead of so many people who have gotten used to there free music downloads arguing that any restriction is unconstitutional, I like to see some people applying their intelligence to find a solution that works. If it's important to you to have fair use, then help design a system that allows fair use. That's what we did.
Perhaps ours was a bad design, perhaps not. It's irrelevant I'm not asking people to adopt our solution, just a solution. A solution that included everything that it needs to, and nothing that it doesn't. You apparently deny the need for a solution at all, but I believe that attitude will lead to all of us being shot it the head.
Good DRM as a technology allows fair use
DRM need not threaten fair use.
False.
"I'd like to use this DRM managed book."
"How would you like to pay"
"I choose to not pay under Fair Use"
"Here you go."
THERE IS NO LIMIT TO HOW YOU PAY FOR MANAGED CONTENT!!!!
I can see why this is hard to understand because DRM
solutions that only service distributors don't include the "fair use" payment
option. But a good DRM by definition clearly would.
The problem is that you are considering a list of examples
of fair use rather than fair use itself...
That's not how I think, those are just examples to help you
understand my point which you seem keen to miss.
Just to throw out one random example, the DRM system you
were planning, were you planning to program it to be able to play music files
backwards? You may think that is a silly use, but there is no question that is
is a fair use. Heck, some bands have even included backwards satanic messages
as a gag.
What happens to the managed content once it is provided in
the clear to the application is of no concern to the DRM system other then that
the application does not generate a "persistent" unmanaged copy.
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
All of this is very interesting thanks for the info. However it does seem to
illustrate a part of my point. Whose to say that it is not going to be argued that
it is illegal for and ISP to transmit copyrighted content to your computer if you
have not paid for a license or are the copyright holder. This seems to
demonstrate that bad DRM will prevail if there is no alternative.
good DRM allows both the book and the article to be managed with out causing the reader of the article to buy the book (and perhaps
not the article depending on the fee schedule if any).
The author of the book has no right to impose any fee schedule whatsoever.
My intent was to indicate that the publisher of the article my or may not charge a fee.
He has absolutely no right to restrict the author of the article in any way.
You mean other then all of copyright law.
the untrusted nature of the execution environment.
I am a programmer, and while I'm not professionally involved in Trusted
Comuting I have become a bit of an expert on it. I have been reading the
technical specifications. PrivEK, PubEK, SRK, System Policy Certificates,
Rights Expression Language for contracts, yada yada yada.
The whole thing is a load of crap. The only trusted execution
enviornment you can ever have is on a computer you physically own.
Intertrust technology is very robust and while not literally
undefeatable it is likely harder to defeat then the value of the content. Our
system had that property. I am in fact arguing as I have said
elsewhere in this thread that a trusted computing environment (read actual
hardware) could be very helpful to normal users not just restrictive
distributors, because it would allow DRM to relax much of the restricting, and
I'll grant you, unlawful features.
The entire system is based on one single assumption - that the owner does
not happen to know his own PrivEK. If he does know his PrivEK then the entire
Trust system falls apart. The owner of a computer has absolutely every right to
open a computer and look inside - it is his property. He can read his key out
with a microscope if he has to. You can try to make it hard to do, but you have
absolutely no right to prohibit it.
A) You have every right to prohibit the use of information
that you do not publish, and retain ownership of.This is why most credit cards and
all smart cards state the issuing company owns them no you. B) Compromising physical
hardware is much more acceptable then software because it cannot be distributed as a
crack. Case in point, is
Well I'm sorry I missed the point of the post, but both posts have missed my point to begin with. I believe 100% in fair use. Good DRM as a technology allows fair use (an oddly little known fact for people so concerned with fair use (you'd think everyone is a satirist in danger of loosing his livelihood)). By allowing an aggregate creative work with no fee (for example allowing a quotation of a book, to be included in an article about the book), good DRM allows both the book and the article to be managed with out causing the reader of the article to buy the book (and perhaps not the article depending on the fee schedule if any).
FYI - Educational use is not covered under fair use. If it were textbooks would be a bad business to be in.
DRM need not threaten fair use. It does only because of the paranoia of distributors somewhat supported by the lack of a trusted computing system. Many of the restrictions placed by DRM implementation are only in use to mitigate the untrusted nature of the execution environment.
The pathological fear of DRM is disturbing. I'd like to see people be a little more constructive and provide an alternative that is fair to users and fair to the creators of original work.
Good DRM is possible, but in the absence of options we'll end up with bad DRM.
> pay to play, then pay again and again and again...
Yeah if you're stupid. Better would be to just buy it if you're going to use it again and again. Nothing about the technology requires it to be a Pay-Per-View system, that's just one payment option out of many./. for example has both Pay-Per-View and advertising supported DRM.
We recently bought a sweet of software that is $8,000 a copy (6 copies). I sure would have preferred to rent it for a hourly rate as needed then have to pay all that cash up front. Good DRM could actually be a benefit to end users.
As a one time developer of DRM technology let me say that there is nothing intrinsic abut the technology that requires it to be as restrictive as most systems employ. However, a lot of hedging is added because the execution environment is not trustworthy.
I've come to believe that there is bad DRM and good DRM. We simply haven't seen much good DRM yet, so we all have a bad idea of what it's all about. Technology aside all the law, and public interest, ask is that a fair distribution of creative work be established between a producer and a consumer. This is all fairly well defined in copyright law, and generally accepted by everyone. DRM design need only focus on helping users keep to the law, and just like copyright law err on the side of enabling access rather then restricting it.
A standardized, hardware based system, could be good in several ways. It could provide a "trusted" computation system that is open to utilization by more then one software implementation. It can be "wide scale undefeatable", meaning to defeat a DRM on a given song or software package would require the compromise and rewiring of the hardware itself. This means that a few hackers may crack it, but they can't distribute the crack. Each owner will have to hack his own box (read unlikely).
No doubt distribution companies will try to take advantage of this and keep all the current restrictions on copying in to maximize sales. However, the opposite is actually the truth. Once a trusted computational model is available much of the draconian safe guards can be relaxed. Meaning more user oriented features. For example there would be no reason to keep a person from listening to there music on any number of machines because A) the law says that the licenses are granted to people not machines, and B) you can take your personal access key with you anywhere. Because the hardware is trusted the distributor can be confident that it is you, and only you who have access. Now instead of three computers licensed to play your library, you can access a copy of one of your songs on any computer (one at a time of course). Sure you could loose your key and someone could get access to all your stuff, but hey someone could steal your car too, so keep your key in a safe place. Good systems would allow you to cancel a lost key and issue a new one with all your media still available.
But people who are against DRM are 100% against it. I think by failing to provide a good DRM to compete we are all inviting bad DRM to take over. The people arguing for no DRM ever, will sadly in the end loose, law and money are not on their side. But I do prey that a bad DRM does not take over the world, I hope a few good people will develop a good DRM solution that can be accepted by distributors but is not focused on limiting the legal use of managed content. Only truly illegal/unfair used should be prevented.
As I posted elsewhere on this topic I think we should start a GNU DRM to provide an alternative. I'm willing to contribute all the designs from my old DRM company (don't ask me how I (just a programmer) ended up with the rights to the technology, but I did).
firetellerATkoldnhostileDOTcom - if anyone is interested in starting up a open source DRM project. But even if not me someone should.
Well that's fair enough. Although we never competed in a public setting so that is not the reason it failed. Note that all of the currently widely available DRM solutions are quite successful. Windows licensing, and iTunes are examples that come to mind. Defeatable or not most people use them.
Legally and from an artists point of view unrestricted duplication of a creative work is simply not acceptable. As much as we'd all like to have free copies of or friend's music library it isn't honestly fair to the artists that created it. Is it? But I do agree we should be able to listen to it a few times for free, or perhaps accept commercials to compensate for a fee. And once we pay for it woul should be able to do just about anything we want with it. A well designed DRM could allow for that.
The reason we all hate DRM is because it currently only serves the distributor. It doesn't seem to help the artist, it clearly doesn't help us. I believe that there is a compromise that allows both the creator and the consumer to be treated fairly.
But no matter how much you personally hate bad DRM it WILL win out in the end if there is no "reasonable" competition. They have the favor of money, and the Law.
BTW - DRM has been around for a long time, it's also referred as the distribution media. Only with electronic distribution does the old DRM model break. The model being that the consumer must pay a fee for each copy made.
Slashdot Mirror
No matter what "killed" you, if you end up burning in a giant fireball, it's pretty pointless as to exactly how you died before that.
That's an unfortunate line of thinking that is probably the type of thinking that contributed to NASA's reduced quality controls over the years. The report specifically discusses expanding the "survival envelope". Under this, more thorough, line of thinking one tries to solve all solvable problems, so in future accidents the chance of survival is improved. Yes they where too high and traveling too fast to survive with any known technology other then a complete entry vehicle, but if they where a little bit lower and a little bit slower they could have survived if this reports recommendations where already in place. Without these recommendations, just the loss of cabin pressure would likely kill future astronaut, fireball or no. f
It's a silly argument to say they are charging prices for drugs to pay for the price of advertising. Advertisings sole purpose is to maximize the profit of the product. Not the otherway around. No company smart enough to be profatable will "loose" money on marketing only to scramble to cover those loses with a change in drug prices.
The prices are dictated by the market, the research or licensing investments are also dictaed by the market, the advertising budgets are dictated by the relitive profit of a given product and an estimate on the additional sales generated by advertising. Although some companies may make a mistake on over advertising most companies do not spend more on advertising then the revinue that andvertising generates.
There may be a problem with the way drug compaines invest in research, but ill considered arguments (published or not) only destract from that issue.
-fire> "Video Games are for children."
Video games, like every product on the planet, are *for* who buys them, and right now adults buy video games. The average age of all video gamers is above 21. So I'd have to say that your statement is exactly untrue.
j
I think the gaming community is getting older. Games are starting to market more and more to older men. This is a good thing in most respects as this will lead to gaming becoming a more legitimate art form and communication tool. Games are getting more mature, starting to address more complicated issues then weather a white block will fall out of bounds. Some times the topics will be uninteresting to some people. For most people they are in a faze that is a bit to graphic or literal for their taste.
As with any mass media it is definitely wise for parents to make a conscious choice as to what games are appropriate for children. Once movies could be seen by anyone, now some are better for adults. Once cartoons were a kids genre now adult teamed anime is either uninteresting or inappropriate for children.
In other words it is not meaningful to say that the game industry is not doing a good job for kids. That concept assumes that kids are the only audience. It is the view of the audience that must change.
Perhaps it's time to start taking those ratings on the box more seriously. Perhaps it's time to get a better rating system. But it is completely futile to try to contain video games in a kids only entertainment format, as it has been futile in every instance before. The world is not kid safe, and thinking that it can be made so is unsafe for your children.
-fire
It seems like the software industry spends so much time thinking about the losses due to piracy they forget what those numbers really mean. You see quotes for billions of dollars lost for the industry as a hole.
I'd just like to stop for a moment to remind everyone in the software business here that these losses are imaginary. Not everyone who is cheating a software license would have bought the software to begin with. In fact we don't know how small a percentage of software theft results in real dolor loss. Since the product itself does not cost money per unit, and distribution costs are being paid by the crackers the maker of the software is not experiencing true losses.
Just keep this whole "look how much money we're loosing" shit in check, because when you piss off paying customers to the point of not wanting to buy your products then you are loosing real money not imaginary money.
It reminds me of the cartoon where the bear catches 5 fish then drops them all to catch one more.
I'm really getting tired of people not thinking problems all the way through these days.
-fire
I thought this was an over the top toy at first, but it's turned out to be invaluable. It's about the size of the original Sony cassette Walkman. I.e. smaller then a CD. It's thick and a little heavy, and doesn't come with a belt carrier or other protection. I can lay hours of tivo recording (from my 300 hours modified tivo) and whenever I'm board or waiting in line or traveling, I can just watch a show. Or if I prefer listen to anyone of the songs from my entire album collection. And it's fantastic for capturing video stuff to transfer to the computer, or from the computer to video cassette, or to watch on a T.V.
Also, you got a copy of the Sopranos last night and your friend missed it. No problem just bring it on the archos, you can view it on a normal tv, on the archos, or transfer the file to his computer for him to watch it later.
After the archos itself turned out to be so helpful I decided to get the camera attachment, and I'm very happy with that as well. You can record ~hundred hours on the 80gb drive at slightly better then DV quality (for the file, the single ship CCD is a little week in low light). And it doubles as a 3.3 mega pixel still camera with an amazing amount of storage space. Also the camera comes with a carrying case which is more or less necessary because the lack of protection of the viewing surface.
The three cons for me are price, battery life (given it can't be replaced in transit), and lack of protection. Also the time it takes for the camera to take a still picture is a little sluggish, but manageable.
fire
That's a lot like, say, translating the movie into another language, selling it, and not paying lucasfilm. Sure, that analogy isn't perfect but legally I think that's how its going to be seen.
The analogy isn't perfect in exactly the way that makes it illegal. Translating or transferring of media with no intent to parody is fully subject to copyright restrictions. While parodying in any way provides far use access to the material in any and all forms, weather or not it makes money is immaterial to that freedom.
The real downside of this is that you can't really "sample parody" anything anymore without permission and the dollars to back it up. Either you create a whole new work with no samples like "Spaceballs" or you're kinda out of luck.
According to copyright law, this is exactly not correct. As mentioned elsewhere copying material for parody is specifically protected. That is to mean without limitation. The 'new' work must qualify as a parody, but once it does, that work can contain as much or as little of the original material as the creator wishes.
There have been cases where no aspect of the original work has been changed at all, only the context in which it was shown, and that was considered enough to warrant parody status.
On the other had if you are speaking pragmatically and not literally, then you may be right in that once a large Copyright concern becomes interested in defending, justly or unjustly, a perceived copyright infringement the attack may have such force as to cause legal, fair use, of the material to be impractical. Where this happens it is very dangerous to the public interest, and the freedom of speech.
I saw the Star Wars one man show here in Chicago last year or so and he charged money, but he didn't use anything other than his body to do his act. So he was completely free to charge. In fact a lawsuit by Lucas would have (all things being equal) been lost.
I would also differ with you in this opinion. A one man performance of the original material, is a transfer of media or adaptation. Without intent to parody this is actually copyright infringement just as much as writing a book based on Star Wars would be.
fireAkasaka Natural Vision Research Center presented some of their technology 6-band HDTV Camera, 16-band Micorscope, 6 primary DLP Projector, etc.
Personally I find this more interesting then the article sence they expose what they are doing. As well as addressing the multi-primary capture issues as well.
It is sad that the graphics options for Macs are so limited. It's the only reason that my company hasn't switched to Mac yet. The performance of the latest G5s as powerful as they are just can't compare with Quadro, or Fire level graphics cards on PCs. What's the need you may say? Well if I'm not mistaken aren't Macs supposed to be the graphics computers. And the entire interface is now implemented in OpenGL, so not only do I get essential acceleration for applications such as Maya, but the interface for all my applications is as fast as it can be.
One day Mac will have a pro graphics card option. On that day, I switch to Mac.
They're going to lose all the developer mindshare they've fought the past 8 years for.
This is the point of view I most agree with. This is a startlingly bad move by RedHat, and I too have already moved to Suse. I am going through the pains of learning the quirks of a new system, and once I'm comfortable there will be nothing RedHad can do to win me back.
P.S. I own a small company and guess what Enterprise OS flavor is at the bottom of my list for evaluation.
I think the exciting thing about this is that we will finally have the possibility to multipipe our graphics systems. A gamer can have a very good system with one card installed, but a graphics workstation might have 4 installed. Not going to 4 monitors as others have mentioned, but all splitting the load for one display for 4 times the performance.
As it is I have to have 4 full machines and a wicked fast network to do the same.
fire
For 5 Million we can have a 50500 node beowulf cluster.
fire
I personally have never owned, and I have never known anyone who owned, a non-disposable Kodak camera. Not that I debate that they exist, but rather that we should all just keep this announcement in perspective. A film company announcing that it will stop selling cameras is like a shipping company saying it's going to stop selling ships. Much more note worthy is that they were trying to sell them in the first place.
This is what the financial blokes refer to as a false indicator, especially if anyone reads the decline of film into it. Kodak has never been good at selling cameras (well perhaps it the 50s and 60s for a bit). Getting out of that business is a good move for them regardless of the viability of the film market.
fire
Statistics are only truly useful in quantum physics and propaganda.
fire
Over the past few years all things Asian have been building up popularity here in L.A. As witnessed by the growth of such new magazines as "Giant Robot". Perhaps we're moving towards Blade Runner world.
I for one am all for it. The Asian design since from Hong Kong and Japan is quite good, and it's time for them to stop regurgitating western culture and come into there own. There also seems to be a ground swell of radical art coming out of Japan. I read this as retaliation against a conformist culture. It's very exciting, I think we are in for ride the equivalent of America in the 60s.
fireMatrix Reloaded was not entered for Oscar consideration to avoid the two movies competing against each other.
Matrix Revolutions was the only one in consideration for the long list.
It's exclusion from the list in favor of T3 is very odd to me, as a visual effects professional. "Revolutions" was clearly superior in number and quality of effects. IMHO
fire
I understand what it is intended to do. It tries to make infringement as difficult as it can while allowing as much Fair Use as it can.
No this is exactly opposite of what the DRM system I worked on does. This is why I say I've explained poorly. Our system erred on the side of granting access not the other way around, such is the requirement of Fair Use. What it provided was an easy way to work legally with copyrighted materials when fair use was not applicable, and an audit trail when it was. But *NO* restrictions were ever applied when fair use was in effect.
The rest of your post is easily refuted by "iTunes". You may call it illegal, but Apple is making money with it. And I see no successful challenge on the horizon to their blocking of fair use.
fire
I apologize. I apparently lack the skills to explain to you what a user based DRM solution would do for everyone involved in this dispute.
I hope you, and people who feel like you win. I truly do. But the battle is almost over, and the camp you represent has not even shown up on the raider yet. RIAA is winning cases, Apple and MS have implemented Restrictive DRM, and InterTrust has announced a trusted computing standard that will seal consumers fate with in the next five years.
Napster lost everything because no court believed that fair use was a valid argument to allow mass distribution of music. And Napster hired some of the best lawyers in the world.
Instead of so many people who have gotten used to there free music downloads arguing that any restriction is unconstitutional, I like to see some people applying their intelligence to find a solution that works. If it's important to you to have fair use, then help design a system that allows fair use. That's what we did.
Perhaps ours was a bad design, perhaps not. It's irrelevant I'm not asking people to adopt our solution, just a solution. A solution that included everything that it needs to, and nothing that it doesn't. You apparently deny the need for a solution at all, but I believe that attitude will lead to all of us being shot it the head.
fire
Good DRM as a technology allows fair use
DRM need not threaten fair use.
False.
"I'd like to use this DRM managed book."
"How would you like to pay"
"I choose to not pay under Fair Use"
"Here you go."
THERE IS NO LIMIT TO HOW YOU PAY FOR MANAGED CONTENT!!!!
I can see why this is hard to understand because DRM solutions that only service distributors don't include the "fair use" payment option. But a good DRM by definition clearly would.
The problem is that you are considering a list of examples of fair use rather than fair use itself...
That's not how I think, those are just examples to help you understand my point which you seem keen to miss.
Just to throw out one random example, the DRM system you were planning, were you planning to program it to be able to play music files backwards? You may think that is a silly use, but there is no question that is is a fair use. Heck, some bands have even included backwards satanic messages as a gag.
What happens to the managed content once it is provided in the clear to the application is of no concern to the DRM system other then that the application does not generate a "persistent" unmanaged copy.
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
All of this is very interesting thanks for the info. However it does seem to illustrate a part of my point. Whose to say that it is not going to be argued that it is illegal for and ISP to transmit copyrighted content to your computer if you have not paid for a license or are the copyright holder. This seems to demonstrate that bad DRM will prevail if there is no alternative.
good DRM allows both the book and the article to be managed with out causing the reader of the article to buy the book (and perhaps not the article depending on the fee schedule if any).
The author of the book has no right to impose any fee schedule whatsoever.
My intent was to indicate that the publisher of the article my or may not charge a fee.
He has absolutely no right to restrict the author of the article in any way.
You mean other then all of copyright law.
the untrusted nature of the execution environment.
I am a programmer, and while I'm not professionally involved in Trusted Comuting I have become a bit of an expert on it. I have been reading the technical specifications. PrivEK, PubEK, SRK, System Policy Certificates, Rights Expression Language for contracts, yada yada yada.
The whole thing is a load of crap. The only trusted execution enviornment you can ever have is on a computer you physically own.
Intertrust technology is very robust and while not literally undefeatable it is likely harder to defeat then the value of the content. Our system had that property. I am in fact arguing as I have said elsewhere in this thread that a trusted computing environment (read actual hardware) could be very helpful to normal users not just restrictive distributors, because it would allow DRM to relax much of the restricting, and I'll grant you, unlawful features.
The entire system is based on one single assumption - that the owner does not happen to know his own PrivEK. If he does know his PrivEK then the entire Trust system falls apart. The owner of a computer has absolutely every right to open a computer and look inside - it is his property. He can read his key out with a microscope if he has to. You can try to make it hard to do, but you have absolutely no right to prohibit it.
A) You have every right to prohibit the use of information that you do not publish, and retain ownership of.This is why most credit cards and all smart cards state the issuing company owns them no you. B) Compromising physical hardware is much more acceptable then software because it cannot be distributed as a crack. Case in point, is
Very old news. "Teddy" was developed by Takeo Igarashi at the University of Tokyo, and presented at SIGGRAPH 1999. 8-13-99 Schedule
Well I'm sorry I missed the point of the post, but both posts have missed my point to begin with. I believe 100% in fair use. Good DRM as a technology allows fair use (an oddly little known fact for people so concerned with fair use (you'd think everyone is a satirist in danger of loosing his livelihood)). By allowing an aggregate creative work with no fee (for example allowing a quotation of a book, to be included in an article about the book), good DRM allows both the book and the article to be managed with out causing the reader of the article to buy the book (and perhaps not the article depending on the fee schedule if any).
FYI - Educational use is not covered under fair use. If it were textbooks would be a bad business to be in.
DRM need not threaten fair use. It does only because of the paranoia of distributors somewhat supported by the lack of a trusted computing system. Many of the restrictions placed by DRM implementation are only in use to mitigate the untrusted nature of the execution environment.
The pathological fear of DRM is disturbing. I'd like to see people be a little more constructive and provide an alternative that is fair to users and fair to the creators of original work.
Good DRM is possible, but in the absence of options we'll end up with bad DRM.
> pay to play, then pay again and again and again...
/. for example has both Pay-Per-View and advertising supported DRM.
Yeah if you're stupid. Better would be to just buy it if you're going to use it again and again. Nothing about the technology requires it to be a Pay-Per-View system, that's just one payment option out of many.
We recently bought a sweet of software that is $8,000 a copy (6 copies). I sure would have preferred to rent it for a hourly rate as needed then have to pay all that cash up front. Good DRM could actually be a benefit to end users.
As a one time developer of DRM technology let me say that there is nothing intrinsic abut the technology that requires it to be as restrictive as most systems employ. However, a lot of hedging is added because the execution environment is not trustworthy.
I've come to believe that there is bad DRM and good DRM. We simply haven't seen much good DRM yet, so we all have a bad idea of what it's all about. Technology aside all the law, and public interest, ask is that a fair distribution of creative work be established between a producer and a consumer. This is all fairly well defined in copyright law, and generally accepted by everyone. DRM design need only focus on helping users keep to the law, and just like copyright law err on the side of enabling access rather then restricting it.
A standardized, hardware based system, could be good in several ways. It could provide a "trusted" computation system that is open to utilization by more then one software implementation. It can be "wide scale undefeatable", meaning to defeat a DRM on a given song or software package would require the compromise and rewiring of the hardware itself. This means that a few hackers may crack it, but they can't distribute the crack. Each owner will have to hack his own box (read unlikely).
No doubt distribution companies will try to take advantage of this and keep all the current restrictions on copying in to maximize sales. However, the opposite is actually the truth. Once a trusted computational model is available much of the draconian safe guards can be relaxed. Meaning more user oriented features. For example there would be no reason to keep a person from listening to there music on any number of machines because A) the law says that the licenses are granted to people not machines, and B) you can take your personal access key with you anywhere. Because the hardware is trusted the distributor can be confident that it is you, and only you who have access. Now instead of three computers licensed to play your library, you can access a copy of one of your songs on any computer (one at a time of course). Sure you could loose your key and someone could get access to all your stuff, but hey someone could steal your car too, so keep your key in a safe place. Good systems would allow you to cancel a lost key and issue a new one with all your media still available.
But people who are against DRM are 100% against it. I think by failing to provide a good DRM to compete we are all inviting bad DRM to take over. The people arguing for no DRM ever, will sadly in the end loose, law and money are not on their side. But I do prey that a bad DRM does not take over the world, I hope a few good people will develop a good DRM solution that can be accepted by distributors but is not focused on limiting the legal use of managed content. Only truly illegal/unfair used should be prevented.
As I posted elsewhere on this topic I think we should start a GNU DRM to provide an alternative. I'm willing to contribute all the designs from my old DRM company (don't ask me how I (just a programmer) ended up with the rights to the technology, but I did).
firetellerATkoldnhostileDOTcom - if anyone is interested in starting up a open source DRM project. But even if not me someone should.
Well that's fair enough. Although we never competed in a public setting so that is not the reason it failed. Note that all of the currently widely available DRM solutions are quite successful. Windows licensing, and iTunes are examples that come to mind. Defeatable or not most people use them.
Legally and from an artists point of view unrestricted duplication of a creative work is simply not acceptable. As much as we'd all like to have free copies of or friend's music library it isn't honestly fair to the artists that created it. Is it? But I do agree we should be able to listen to it a few times for free, or perhaps accept commercials to compensate for a fee. And once we pay for it woul should be able to do just about anything we want with it. A well designed DRM could allow for that.
The reason we all hate DRM is because it currently only serves the distributor. It doesn't seem to help the artist, it clearly doesn't help us. I believe that there is a compromise that allows both the creator and the consumer to be treated fairly.
But no matter how much you personally hate bad DRM it WILL win out in the end if there is no "reasonable" competition. They have the favor of money, and the Law.
BTW - DRM has been around for a long time, it's also referred as the distribution media. Only with electronic distribution does the old DRM model break. The model being that the consumer must pay a fee for each copy made.