I don't think anyone's going to be breathing a sigh of relief because the law seemed both unenforced and unenforcable. If it really made criminals of most of the population, then the average citizen probably didn't worry about this law much, if at all.
OTOH, I like seeing Australia taking a more friendly stance on this. Although the change will mean very little for the citizens, it's a message that they're declaring this stance instead of leaving it de facto.
They've got nothing to gain by being behind it - ISP control doesn't give MS a profit, while local control over each computer means that MS can peddle their own anti-Spyware, AV, firewalls, etc, that DO turn them a profit. And lets face it - if MS doesn't support it, it probably won't happen on a large scale.
OTOH, MS looks cool by being against it, especially among the regularly MS bashing circles (Read: Slashdot)
This is yet another utilitarian move from MS. No suprises here.
You bring up an interesting point - but I think the two are the same. I assume the government is its OWN ISP in most situations - ergo local control IS ISP control.
1. It's impractical - I can see how the White House might deal with this sort of restriction, but an ISP dealing with thousands of customers that don't WANT to cooperate - not to mention, there would be an absurd number of software and hardware iiterations, hacks, etc, all of which they'd have to deal with.
2. It's unfair - I should be able to run the software I want on the hardware I want, as long as I'm not producing malware. A restriction on rights for security is inconsistent with democractic ideals, especially with the qualifier that the security doesn't necessarily protect rights.
In one respect, they're short and wide - the drinking portion - but on the other hand the stems can be quite tall, making the glass tall and slender overall.
Although I don't think this is quite what the article is talking about, shorter glasses (think shot glasses) tend to be used for high alc. content drinks. OTOH, taller glasses tend to be used for beer, etc. Perhaps there's a relationship, too, between drinking too much and the type of booze, which could act as a lurking variable in the overall scheme of glasstype/drinking quantity correllation.
Now that these companies are actually producing products instead of touting them on paper, will they realize (falsely or not) that it's not worth pushing DRM? Or will they continue delaying a DRM release at the expense of new, otherwise helpful, tech?
Regardless of where the demo comes from, it's going to be hacked.
Also - Is there protection on the OXM demo disk?
Although - We all know this is a moot point. The Xbox 360 will be hacked, cracked, modded, etc, no matter what happens. This is simply expediting the inevitable.
And this is where the online capabilities become a mixed blessing. Just as users can download media, MS may be able to sneak in a DRM-esque update without the users knowing it. I'd be suprised if that didn't happen, in fact.
If you're buying these sorts of processors, you're probably buying them as much to future-proof your system as you are to use current apps.
But to answer your question - You can assign background tasks (FAH, MSNM, Xfire, etc.) to one core, and then try to game on the other. Or run multiple instances of apps such as FAH. But the main reason, I think, is future-proofing.
I'd love to be able to seed multiple torrents, download files, play CS, host an FTP server, and still leave enough bandwidth for others on my network to browse the net and stream video. Right now (5mbps down, 2mpbs up) I can really only do one or, or at best, two or three of these things at once.
This isn't a specific attack on podcasts, and this would be attacked if it were in something as archaic as cuneiform. It's the message, not the medium.
But how are they analogous - Under this law, the stores that sold to the kids without permission would get fined, right? Or, would the parents get fined/sued for their kids buying a video game underage? Or both?
Vs the RIAA - Kid engages in illegal activity (regardless of parental sanction) and parents get owned.
I know everyone around here is probably feeling elated and self-righteous, but I think it's more than we can expect, really, in this situation with video games. Think of the culture of the past and backlash there - Booze, Jazz, Rock & Roll, etc... We're getting it pretty good.
To put another spin on it, arnold would be accepting a ban on something that he personally profits for. From a business standpoint, the ban doesn't make sense for him either. I don't mean to imply that this is his guiding reason, or even a factor, but it's one way to look at it.
If you provide say, even TEN fail-safes that can mutate, what are the chances that ALL TEN will mutate and allow the organism to survive? What about 100 fail-safes?
And even if we can make these things perform useful functions, how to make sure they don't die out from lack of an evolutionary niche or mutate and become pathological?
Simple.
If we know their genome, presumably we can kill them off pretty darn quickly.
In this case, design flaws ARE a feature.
Can't wait until Microsoft gets into this field. Those BSOD's must be nasty.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone's going to be breathing a sigh of relief because the law seemed both unenforced and unenforcable. If it really made criminals of most of the population, then the average citizen probably didn't worry about this law much, if at all.
OTOH, I like seeing Australia taking a more friendly stance on this. Although the change will mean very little for the citizens, it's a message that they're declaring this stance instead of leaving it de facto.
The real reason microsoft is against this:
They've got nothing to gain by being behind it - ISP control doesn't give MS a profit, while local control over each computer means that MS can peddle their own anti-Spyware, AV, firewalls, etc, that DO turn them a profit. And lets face it - if MS doesn't support it, it probably won't happen on a large scale.
OTOH, MS looks cool by being against it, especially among the regularly MS bashing circles (Read: Slashdot)
This is yet another utilitarian move from MS. No suprises here.
You bring up an interesting point - but I think the two are the same. I assume the government is its OWN ISP in most situations - ergo local control IS ISP control.
Answer: Does it really make any difference?
How much power does MS wield? How much power does the OS community wield?
1. It's impractical -
I can see how the White House might deal with this sort of restriction, but an ISP dealing with thousands of customers that don't WANT to cooperate - not to mention, there would be an absurd number of software and hardware iiterations, hacks, etc, all of which they'd have to deal with.
2. It's unfair -
I should be able to run the software I want on the hardware I want, as long as I'm not producing malware. A restriction on rights for security is inconsistent with democractic ideals, especially with the qualifier that the security doesn't necessarily protect rights.
In one respect, they're short and wide - the drinking portion - but on the other hand the stems can be quite tall, making the glass tall and slender overall.
Where do these glasses fall?
Although I don't think this is quite what the article is talking about, shorter glasses (think shot glasses) tend to be used for high alc. content drinks. OTOH, taller glasses tend to be used for beer, etc. Perhaps there's a relationship, too, between drinking too much and the type of booze, which could act as a lurking variable in the overall scheme of glasstype/drinking quantity correllation.
Now that these companies are actually producing products instead of touting them on paper, will they realize (falsely or not) that it's not worth pushing DRM? Or will they continue delaying a DRM release at the expense of new, otherwise helpful, tech?
Welcome our new Galactic Battlestarring overlords.
They probably thought someone ELSE was trolling by correcting the parent's post.
Sony V. Microsoft: DRM rootkits on a MS console. Would be an interesting clash.
Of course, that's if they WEREN'T working together.
Regardless of where the demo comes from, it's going to be hacked.
Also - Is there protection on the OXM demo disk?
Although - We all know this is a moot point. The Xbox 360 will be hacked, cracked, modded, etc, no matter what happens. This is simply expediting the inevitable.
And this is where the online capabilities become a mixed blessing. Just as users can download media, MS may be able to sneak in a DRM-esque update without the users knowing it. I'd be suprised if that didn't happen, in fact.
But -
Won't we have demo disks released soon enough? I doubt OXM, among other publications, will pass up on making demo disks.
Besides, can't demos and media be downloaded from Xbox Live as is? I didn't get my hands on a 360, but this is what I've heard.
If you're buying these sorts of processors, you're probably buying them as much to future-proof your system as you are to use current apps.
But to answer your question - You can assign background tasks (FAH, MSNM, Xfire, etc.) to one core, and then try to game on the other. Or run multiple instances of apps such as FAH. But the main reason, I think, is future-proofing.
With GIMP alone, we can see how confusing things get:
GIMP = GNU Image Manipulation Program
This contains an acronym by itself, that is GNU.
GNU = GNU's Not Unix
So not only is GIMP an acronym, it CONTAINS an acronym, and a recursive acronym at that.
Confused yet?
And I'll use it. I can never have too much.
I'd love to be able to seed multiple torrents, download files, play CS, host an FTP server, and still leave enough bandwidth for others on my network to browse the net and stream video. Right now (5mbps down, 2mpbs up) I can really only do one or, or at best, two or three of these things at once.
Yes, of course faster broadband matters.
The RIAA Pirates YOU!
I mean, America.
Screw it.
First Post!
And they just happened to be on a podcast.
This isn't a specific attack on podcasts, and this would be attacked if it were in something as archaic as cuneiform. It's the message, not the medium.
I tried to write a legnthy reply to this -
But how are they analogous - Under this law, the stores that sold to the kids without permission would get fined, right? Or, would the parents get fined/sued for their kids buying a video game underage? Or both?
Vs the RIAA - Kid engages in illegal activity (regardless of parental sanction) and parents get owned.
I know everyone around here is probably feeling elated and self-righteous, but I think it's more than we can expect, really, in this situation with video games. Think of the culture of the past and backlash there - Booze, Jazz, Rock & Roll, etc... We're getting it pretty good.
To put another spin on it, arnold would be accepting a ban on something that he personally profits for. From a business standpoint, the ban doesn't make sense for him either. I don't mean to imply that this is his guiding reason, or even a factor, but it's one way to look at it.
~Ruff_ilb
If you provide say, even TEN fail-safes that can mutate, what are the chances that ALL TEN will mutate and allow the organism to survive? What about 100 fail-safes?
Very, VERY small, I'd bet.
If we know their genome, presumably we can kill them off pretty darn quickly.
In this case, design flaws ARE a feature.
Can't wait until Microsoft gets into this field. Those BSOD's must be nasty.
Genetics code YOU!
Oh wait... they do...
Carry on.