It used to be common to hear the argument, "Apple doesn't like DRM, they only use it because otherwise the popular music oligopoly wouldn't let them sell their music." Now we know that isn't true. Apple likes DRM just as much as the big music companies, just for a different reason - Apple wants iTunes purchases to work only on the iPod.
Of course not. You can copyright a specific anthropomorphic animal, and you can trademark his name, but to steal from the public the very idea of anthropomorphic animals, you'd need a patent.
Even towards the more noble goal of running homebrew software on the XBox360, this hack is useful. Since it is designed to run only signed code, the obvious vector of attack is to make the signed code do something bad. One way to do this is to give the signed code malicious input, which is much easier to do now, because any unsigned content on the DVD can now be changed. (Of course, maybe the whole DVD is signed, I don't know.)
If "everything is hackable," I have Pentiums that can't fdiv to sell you - I'm sure you can fix them easily. Oh, so you don't have a electron microscope in your basement and a really steady hand? I guess some things aren't really hackable.
I think it's likely that all this will be hacked, or the restrictions will be eased, or HD-DVD/Blueray discs that don't enforce the restrictions will be the only ones that sell. But feeling invincible because "everything can be hacked" is really dangerous.
No. The FSF does require that for its code, but Linux and a lot of other projects don't. It's not always bad, though. While it's harder to change the license, you don't have to trust whoever you're assigning the license to to not sell out.
Or, you can always download the music and make an audio CD to give.
An important correction: you can currently download the music and make an audio CD to give. You don't know that will be true in the future, and if the RIAA gets their way, it probably won't be.
If Google has DRM that doesn't interfere with use, there is nothing wrong with it.
Even the almighty Google couldn't do that, as DRM that doesn't interfere with use is an oxymoron. That's its whole friggin purpose! You can make DRM that doesn't interfere with use much or for most users, but you can't make it completely seamless.
If a company says "DRM that doesn't interfere with use" is their goal, they must be lying - why would they waste money on nothing? Most likely they plan to roll out the infrastructure while people like you sell their freedom for security, then change the rules after there's no way to stop them.
You seem to be misinformed about the purpose of DRM. It's not to stop pirates. That's impossible. It's not to slow pirates. If anything it helps pirates by adding to their ranks. DRM's sole purpose is to squeeze more money out of honest customers by restricting rights that are legally theirs.
Exactly - since we already have the filesystem, what exactly was the point of the registry? Just optimize the filesystem for smaller files (ReiserFS, anyone?) or use bigger chunks (instead of one key-value pair == one file/registry entry, have multiple pairs on their own line in a file).
I think the technology is kexec. But all it really does is prevent the BIOS from doing its thing for a warm reboot, by simply loading the new kernel instead of resetting the system. I think all the running process still die. I don't know what effect it has on uptime, but it's still a reboot for all intents and purposes.
I don't see any problem with searching for or even relying upon a more simple theory, even if the proceeding theory describes all current observations, as long as the new theory is also consistent with them. To put it another way, given that the theory of relativity was more aesthetically pleasing than the other theories of the day, and supposing it were devised before the experimental data that necessitated it was found, what would have been wrong with adopting it early? This is Occam's razor. Of course, a theory being developed before it's necessary is rare, but it might have happened in quantum mechanics.
I have an idea - nVidia could subsidize the tremendous task of writing open source video drivers with some sort of side business, like, oh I don't know, manufacturing video hardware.
At what point does that become a freedom of speech issue? If I write code, and nobody can afford to run it because nobody can afford to pay the tax, how is that not the government censoring me? Would it be OK for the government to say, "This book you wrote is worth X dollars, so anybody wishing to read it must pay us Y dollars"? I think there's, to put it mildly, a huge potential for abuse.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the size of the tree (and the time to build it) dramatically increased, what with all those darn 300KB./configure scripts that take a minute to run.
Physical property X can vary from Y to Z but it doesn't. Slightest variation in X would preclude life.
Ex: Boiling point of water, melting point of ice, enzymatic reactions, patterns of moulcules and crystals, etc....
We have no evidence that any of those physical properties can vary (and we're pretty sure they don't). Also, we don't have enough understanding to guess, and certainly we cannot experimentally verify, that life would not exist if those properties were different. And even if changes to those properties were possible and did preclude life, there would be a more simple alternate hypothesis that explains the properties being as they are: we are life, and we are not precluded, so the properties of our universe must not preclude life. Put another way, all possible universes may exist, but it's not surprising that we're in one that supports life, not because Anybody tweaked our universe, but because the barren universes would have nobody to be surprised.
Actually, correctly labeled keys are horrible for learning to touch type with any layout. You're not supposed to be looking at your hands, that's the whole point! When my high school taught people touch typing, they made the students put wash-cloths over their hands, and the next class had to use keyboard-condoms. When I first started learning Dvorak, I found the easiest solution was to have a Dvorak layout visible on the screen.
Well, generally speaking, Apple users are more likely to appreciate that. I mean c'mon, if you can't figure out more than one mouse button, what are you going to make of three extra letters? (Joking! Don't kill me.) Also, because viruses haven't been as much of a problem on Mac, the hiding of file extensions hasn't been exploited, so attention hasn't been called to it.
The only reasons people will want to be anonymous is when they're doing something illegal.
...says the pseudononymous poster on Slashdot.
Also, a key reason is laziness. Lots of random (i.e., no Wikipedia account) people visit articles that they know more about than the authors did. If they find a factual error, they're much more likely to fix it if they don't have to take the time to make an account and confirm their email.
Slashdot Mirror
It used to be common to hear the argument, "Apple doesn't like DRM, they only use it because otherwise the popular music oligopoly wouldn't let them sell their music." Now we know that isn't true. Apple likes DRM just as much as the big music companies, just for a different reason - Apple wants iTunes purchases to work only on the iPod.
Of course not. You can copyright a specific anthropomorphic animal, and you can trademark his name, but to steal from the public the very idea of anthropomorphic animals, you'd need a patent.
Even towards the more noble goal of running homebrew software on the XBox360, this hack is useful. Since it is designed to run only signed code, the obvious vector of attack is to make the signed code do something bad. One way to do this is to give the signed code malicious input, which is much easier to do now, because any unsigned content on the DVD can now be changed. (Of course, maybe the whole DVD is signed, I don't know.)
I think it's likely that all this will be hacked, or the restrictions will be eased, or HD-DVD/Blueray discs that don't enforce the restrictions will be the only ones that sell. But feeling invincible because "everything can be hacked" is really dangerous.
So presumably heavy armour (like on the AT-AT walker Luke had to use a grenade on) is made from Chuck Norris? Awesome.
No. The FSF does require that for its code, but Linux and a lot of other projects don't. It's not always bad, though. While it's harder to change the license, you don't have to trust whoever you're assigning the license to to not sell out.
So suppose I'm from the world, trying to work in the worldwide software market. I would lose if the EU got software patents.
An important correction: you can currently download the music and make an audio CD to give. You don't know that will be true in the future, and if the RIAA gets their way, it probably won't be.
Even the almighty Google couldn't do that, as DRM that doesn't interfere with use is an oxymoron. That's its whole friggin purpose! You can make DRM that doesn't interfere with use much or for most users, but you can't make it completely seamless.
If a company says "DRM that doesn't interfere with use" is their goal, they must be lying - why would they waste money on nothing? Most likely they plan to roll out the infrastructure while people like you sell their freedom for security, then change the rules after there's no way to stop them.
A necessary evil is no less an evil.
You seem to be misinformed about the purpose of DRM. It's not to stop pirates. That's impossible. It's not to slow pirates. If anything it helps pirates by adding to their ranks. DRM's sole purpose is to squeeze more money out of honest customers by restricting rights that are legally theirs.
Exactly - since we already have the filesystem, what exactly was the point of the registry? Just optimize the filesystem for smaller files (ReiserFS, anyone?) or use bigger chunks (instead of one key-value pair == one file/registry entry, have multiple pairs on their own line in a file).
I think the technology is kexec. But all it really does is prevent the BIOS from doing its thing for a warm reboot, by simply loading the new kernel instead of resetting the system. I think all the running process still die. I don't know what effect it has on uptime, but it's still a reboot for all intents and purposes.
I don't see any problem with searching for or even relying upon a more simple theory, even if the proceeding theory describes all current observations, as long as the new theory is also consistent with them. To put it another way, given that the theory of relativity was more aesthetically pleasing than the other theories of the day, and supposing it were devised before the experimental data that necessitated it was found, what would have been wrong with adopting it early? This is Occam's razor. Of course, a theory being developed before it's necessary is rare, but it might have happened in quantum mechanics.
I have an idea - nVidia could subsidize the tremendous task of writing open source video drivers with some sort of side business, like, oh I don't know, manufacturing video hardware.
A wise man once said, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for saf-- oh GOD, WTF IS THAT? AAAAAAA
Not using words like fuck, breast, or parsexml is sometimes necessary to avoid being blocked by filtering software. Grrr.
4 GB, however, really should be enough for anybody.
At what point does that become a freedom of speech issue? If I write code, and nobody can afford to run it because nobody can afford to pay the tax, how is that not the government censoring me? Would it be OK for the government to say, "This book you wrote is worth X dollars, so anybody wishing to read it must pay us Y dollars"? I think there's, to put it mildly, a huge potential for abuse.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the size of the tree (and the time to build it) dramatically increased, what with all those darn 300KB ./configure scripts that take a minute to run.
Ex: Boiling point of water, melting point of ice, enzymatic reactions, patterns of moulcules and crystals, etc....
We have no evidence that any of those physical properties can vary (and we're pretty sure they don't). Also, we don't have enough understanding to guess, and certainly we cannot experimentally verify, that life would not exist if those properties were different. And even if changes to those properties were possible and did preclude life, there would be a more simple alternate hypothesis that explains the properties being as they are: we are life, and we are not precluded, so the properties of our universe must not preclude life. Put another way, all possible universes may exist, but it's not surprising that we're in one that supports life, not because Anybody tweaked our universe, but because the barren universes would have nobody to be surprised.
Slashdot is a group of many people, therefore its expression of conflicting opinions is not hypocritical.
Actually, correctly labeled keys are horrible for learning to touch type with any layout. You're not supposed to be looking at your hands, that's the whole point! When my high school taught people touch typing, they made the students put wash-cloths over their hands, and the next class had to use keyboard-condoms. When I first started learning Dvorak, I found the easiest solution was to have a Dvorak layout visible on the screen.
Well, generally speaking, Apple users are more likely to appreciate that. I mean c'mon, if you can't figure out more than one mouse button, what are you going to make of three extra letters? (Joking! Don't kill me.) Also, because viruses haven't been as much of a problem on Mac, the hiding of file extensions hasn't been exploited, so attention hasn't been called to it.
...says the pseudononymous poster on Slashdot.
Also, a key reason is laziness. Lots of random (i.e., no Wikipedia account) people visit articles that they know more about than the authors did. If they find a factual error, they're much more likely to fix it if they don't have to take the time to make an account and confirm their email.