I think the (horribly misguided) idea is that even if you somehow figure out how to start an illegitimate copy of the game without authenticating, your game will still be crippled to the point of being unplayable.
Unfortunately the same is true if you start a legitimate copy of the game with a spotty internet connection.
Indeed, I'm sure it works well with XML, Access, and SQL Server. In the video, he shows the extension to ADO.NET which allows you to query a database using compiler-checked syntax. Having experienced the wonders of ADO.NET with non-MS databases (Oracle, mostly), I'd put money on the fact that the new built in queries won't play nice with such databases.
I think most importantly (and on a point most people don't seem to recognize) abolition of IP rights would lead to DRM of the most widespread and draconian variety.
If the government stops protecting copyright, I guarantee you corporations step in and take up the slack. I, for one, trust the government more than I trust Sony.
You seem to have the idea that the boy is not capable of dealing with other people acting in ways that he is taught not to act.
Consider this: you teach an 11 year old child to be tolerant of other people, but then allow them to read hate speech sites an hour a day for the subsequent 7 years. Do you think perhaps some of the views of those pages would seep into the still-developing mind, just a little?
Indeed all the problems you cite can be found in society at large, the problem with this one medium is that it is concentrated, prevalent, widespread, and extreme, and on top of all that it is pleasurable and is likely to be the child's first sensory experience with that aspect of life.
How do you counteract all of that without blocking the content?
How, pray tell, does it tell the difference between bits that come from my CDs that I own versus those which come from CDs that others own? I believe one of those copies is perfectly legal.
You advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
The more complex something is, the much harder it becomes to apply such a blanket adjective.
Unless that blanket adjective is "complex."
Seriously, it shouldn't be that hard to label something as fun or un-fun. I doubt any game out there is that much more complex than your average Carribbean vacation (including planning, reservation, flights, etc), and yet people would seem to have no problem labeling such a vacation with a blanket term like fun or un-fun.
I have to second that. Having worked with.NET for some time now, I'd never willingly go back to the Win32 API for Windows apps. If it's on its way out, what's going to replace it? MFC? Java?
Sure, the stuff mostly doesn't run cross platform, but it's also quite rare that I ever need to develop for cross platform support. Plus, there's always Mono (not sure what state it's in though).
"Anything which they build into it requires code at the OS level. Any code at the OS level is stored in memory somewhere. Any code stored in memory can be analyzed and reverse engineered."
Not so. At all.
Trusted computing involves the ability to hide everything from the user. It uses built-in memory curtaining to prevent you from reading another program's memory. It uses checksums to make sure that the IO drivers are not tampered with. It uses hardware-based encryption to make sure that you don't have the access to the keys to decrypt files. It uses application signing to make sure that only trusted applications do have the keys.
Trusted computing is all about DRM. If done properly, there will be no way of circumventing DRM in software short of brute forcing keys. All DRM breaking will have to be done in hardware.
"Hard to write a media player that makes use of the built-in DRM if the people writing the media player don't know how the DRM works."
Exactly. With trusted computing you can't. The songs that play in one application will only ever run in that one application.
I think the best compression you can get while still retaining some amount of quality is about 350 MB per hour, which is 250 GB per month per channel.
Even if they did have only 5 channels, that'd be 1.25 TB of storage.
With the 400 channels someone else mentioned, you're talking more like 500 TB.
That is all not to mention the amount of hard drive bandwidth you'd need to write that all out, and the amount of CPU speed you'd need to compress it on the fly. Just recording the raw mpeg stream off a PVR350 , you can multiply those numbers by 3.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the (horribly misguided) idea is that even if you somehow figure out how to start an illegitimate copy of the game without authenticating, your game will still be crippled to the point of being unplayable. Unfortunately the same is true if you start a legitimate copy of the game with a spotty internet connection.
It should be noted that the book you linked is available for free online at http://www.rubycentral.com/book/ It's very good for learning the language.
And, you gotta ask, just how many pints would you have to drink to decide you wanted to be launched out of such a device?
6
I want a pot-bellied elephant.
Actually, the game is pretty much about intelligent design.
How is this better than having two unconnected shafts with an elevator in each?
Tickle... Amy... Tickle
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112715/
Indeed, I'm sure it works well with XML, Access, and SQL Server. In the video, he shows the extension to ADO .NET which allows you to query a database using compiler-checked syntax. Having experienced the wonders of ADO .NET with non-MS databases (Oracle, mostly), I'd put money on the fact that the new built in queries won't play nice with such databases.
Check your math. According to your numbers, the US has about twice the police force per capita.
I think most importantly (and on a point most people don't seem to recognize) abolition of IP rights would lead to DRM of the most widespread and draconian variety.
If the government stops protecting copyright, I guarantee you corporations step in and take up the slack. I, for one, trust the government more than I trust Sony.
I know where I want to move to. Somewhere where they're only just now allowing you to record TV with your VCR?
Well, shoot. Now I'm going to have to stop using 16 bit encryption :(
Consider this: you teach an 11 year old child to be tolerant of other people, but then allow them to read hate speech sites an hour a day for the subsequent 7 years. Do you think perhaps some of the views of those pages would seep into the still-developing mind, just a little?
Indeed all the problems you cite can be found in society at large, the problem with this one medium is that it is concentrated, prevalent, widespread, and extreme, and on top of all that it is pleasurable and is likely to be the child's first sensory experience with that aspect of life.
How do you counteract all of that without blocking the content?
Yeah, imagine all the species whose habitats would be destroyed
why r u a montague thats sucks
Provided your machine is x86 and your operating system is Windows or Linux.
How, pray tell, does it tell the difference between bits that come from my CDs that I own versus those which come from CDs that others own? I believe one of those copies is perfectly legal.
You advocates a ( ) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.) ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (x) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business Specifically, your plan fails to account for ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes (x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook and the following philosophical objections may also apply: (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (x) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough Furthermore, this is what I think about you: (x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
The more complex something is, the much harder it becomes to apply such a blanket adjective.
Unless that blanket adjective is "complex."
Seriously, it shouldn't be that hard to label something as fun or un-fun. I doubt any game out there is that much more complex than your average Carribbean vacation (including planning, reservation, flights, etc), and yet people would seem to have no problem labeling such a vacation with a blanket term like fun or un-fun.
I have to second that. Having worked with .NET for some time now, I'd never willingly go back to the Win32 API for Windows apps. If it's on its way out, what's going to replace it? MFC? Java?
Sure, the stuff mostly doesn't run cross platform, but it's also quite rare that I ever need to develop for cross platform support. Plus, there's always Mono (not sure what state it's in though).
"Anything which they build into it requires code at the OS level. Any code at the OS level is stored in memory somewhere. Any code stored in memory can be analyzed and reverse engineered."
Not so. At all.
Trusted computing involves the ability to hide everything from the user. It uses built-in memory curtaining to prevent you from reading another program's memory. It uses checksums to make sure that the IO drivers are not tampered with. It uses hardware-based encryption to make sure that you don't have the access to the keys to decrypt files. It uses application signing to make sure that only trusted applications do have the keys.
Trusted computing is all about DRM. If done properly, there will be no way of circumventing DRM in software short of brute forcing keys. All DRM breaking will have to be done in hardware.
"Hard to write a media player that makes use of the built-in DRM if the people writing the media player don't know how the DRM works."
Exactly. With trusted computing you can't. The songs that play in one application will only ever run in that one application.
In short, it sucks.
I think the best compression you can get while still retaining some amount of quality is about 350 MB per hour, which is 250 GB per month per channel. Even if they did have only 5 channels, that'd be 1.25 TB of storage. With the 400 channels someone else mentioned, you're talking more like 500 TB. That is all not to mention the amount of hard drive bandwidth you'd need to write that all out, and the amount of CPU speed you'd need to compress it on the fly. Just recording the raw mpeg stream off a PVR350 , you can multiply those numbers by 3.