PC Manufacturer: "Sure, we'll provide a utility to disable secure boot! To download it, just enter your serial number. Note that your warranty will now be voided."
> Williams gave the example of one piracy exploit that caused more than a million reported system crashes
Those millions of crashes wouldn't have happened if the DRM wasn't in the OS to begin with. Still Microsoft's fault for adding defective-by-design code that require exploits to correct.
It's like the McCarthy era in a way. No-one opposed his witchhunts lest they be labeled a communist themselves. It doesn't matter how intrusive, unconstitutional, or unethical a law against a sex offender is. It'll almost always pass, lest people start to whisper...
Any politician who doesn't support harsh punishment has practically guaranteed themselves a tremendous loss come election time at the minimum, if not an outright recall.
"He's not in favor of non-sedated castration for sex offenders! I'll bet he reads kiddie porn..."
100mpg can be done, and Detroit knows it. However, a 100mpg car won't sell to anyone except Prius worshipers and Greenpeace flakes in Sacramento.
Even if gas prices keep skyrocketing, highly efficient vehicles will not be embraced by the driving masses (at least, not in the US) unless it has 250hp, seats eight, and treats a boulder like a speed bump.
Oh, and a dual exhaust is a must. Got to have that satisfying throaty roar.
The problem that the studios are having is that they don't want a repeat of MTV.
But what's that, you say? "MTV was a boon to the music industry, wasn't it?"
And yes, indeed it was. MTV not only promoted popular hits, but it allowed lots of artists that couldn't get airtime on the radio to find an audience via MTV. But, as we all know by now, the industry can't see the forest for the trees.
Here's a quote from this article: Record companies are keen to avoid repeating the mistake they believe they made when Viacom Inc.'s MTV was set up 25 years ago -- allowing their artists' music to be aired for free.
Morris in his remarks to investors on Tuesday said MTV "built a multibillion-dollar company on our (music)... for virtually nothing. We learned a hard lesson."
Yes folks, this is Hollywood's way of saying thank you to MTV. That channel grew a new outlet for music, brought even MORE interest to said music, and helped the music industry make billions, and in spite of all this, the industry is pissed that they gave MTV the tools to do it for free.
And with that in mind, they fear YouTube will be the next MTV, and they want a piece of it. Like usual, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Again. It boggles my mind how utterly near sighted the industry is. It can't see the forest for the trees.
One must truly understand what the RIAA is trying to do here. Their goal isn't recoup lost revenues. Their goal is "shock and awe" through scare tactics.
Basically, their lawyers are instructed to take no prisoners, go for the jugular, and show no mercy. It's to send a message meant to scare people into thinking that if you file share, the RIAA mafia will be after you like a rabid bulldog with lockjaw.
Any respectful prosecutor would lay off and drop the case out of respect. After all, the accused party is dead, so there's really no point. But no, the RIAA is going to find some way to press onward and make it the whole family's problem now, and they know it'll bring negative publicity. They want it. They want to be feared, and for young little "sharing is caring" tykes to be looking under the bed for the RIAA boogyman at night if they so much as dare think about doing such an evil thing as sharing.
This ruthless and heartless behavior is soooooo going to bite the RIAA on the ass someday, hopefully violently.
It depends on how Sony plans to execute this emulation.
Would it be a matter of copying a PSOne game from your old CD onto a memory stick, or would it be a matter of downloading (for a fee, of course) a MagicGate encrypted copy onto a memory stick?
If it's the latter, thanks for nothing. Just more ways to get you to pay over and over for the same damn thing.
Okay, so some people use TiVo to skip product ads.
So if product placement becomes more prevalent in place of those ads, I guess that means people will start skipping shows. ^_^
Newer browsers don't block all advertisements. They block intrusive forms of advertising such as pop-ups. I still see those jiggling impossible-to-focus-your-attention-anywhere-else banner banner ads.
If advertising were passive instead of invasive, people wouldn't mind and wouldn't be going to extremes to get rid of them. Unfortunately, advertisers don't like passive ads because they're easy to ignore (as they should if it's advertising something you could give less than a damn about).
They want ads that grab your attention as if OMFG THIS IS THE HOTTEST THING SINCE SEX AND THE MOMENT YOU SEE THIS YOU'RE GONNA WANNA BUY A BUNCH SO CLICK ME CLICK ME CLICK ME JUST FUCKING CLICK ME, DAMMIT!!!
[click]
Ad: "Welcome to the X10 home automation superstore!"
Me: "Wha...? Why would anybody want this cheesy piece of crap?"
Boycott the RIAA and they'll just blame the decreased sales on piracy. That's their universal excuse for everything.
Q: "How come you're not selling as many CDs?"
A: "Because of piracy."
Q: "Are you sure it isn't because your music sucks?"
A: "Nope. Our research and focus groups have carefully developed a special style and formula that will generate hits as easy as using a cookie cutter. Each one is a guaranteed chart buster. The only reason they aren't is because of piracy."
Q: "What about the people boycotting sales of your CDs? Is that affecting your sales?"
A: "Boycott? Why would anyone boycott us? No, it's only a justification to pirate more music."
Q: "How come you haven't been able to establish a strong market in China?"
A: "Piracy. Duh!"
Q: "What about Antarctica?"
A: "Yup, piracy there too. Damn polar bears."
Q: "I hear that there's a new artist out that's selling really well. Is it because they're finally making fresh music that people enjoy?"
A: "Nope, it's because we've stepped up our efforts to fight piracy."
Q: "So I guess your shit don't stink, huh?"
A: "Pirates keep stealing it, so it doesn't linger long enough for the odor to fester."
Q: "Is there anything good that has come out of piracy?"
A: "Heck yeah! We're reaching incredible profit milestones thanks to our lawsuit business model. I strongly recommend it for any business, but don't follow SCO's example though."
Q: "Is there anything pirates are NOT to blame for?"
A: "Bush getting elected."
April fools joke, eh? Would it be even more of a joke if I said that Apple was going to raise the Itanic? The only fools here are people who think Steve is going to port MacOS to the x86.
Think about it. There is NO CHANCE IN HELL that Stevie will put an x86 processor at the heart of a Mac because it'd basically open the door to clones and homebrews of white-boxes running MacOS. Apple wouldn't dare give its users that much freedom.
No, we're talking ITANIC, baybe!
It makes logical sense, and it's a match made in heaven. AMD64 killed Intel's Itanium game plan in the short term causing sales of the machines to make a huge belly flop, plus it killed Intel's long term plans of eventually replacing the x86 with Itanium rather than slapping on 64-bit capability to the x86 architecture, which AMD did anyway and Intel was forced to adopt.
Intel sure as hell won't let billions of dollars of R&D for this new processor to go down the crapper. The solution? Move the processor to a different platform!
Intel can simply offer its wares to other architectures like the Mac. Plus, Intel has the fabs to make sure that Apple won't be starving for chips, which is a problem Apple constantly griped about with Motorola and IBM.
It'd also give Microsoft one more reason to fear Intel. If Intel is playing both sides of the PC vs. Mac war and suddenly becomes smitten with Microsoft (as they're reported to be lately), Intel would be in a position to play dirty.
Of course, you can also try RPGs, most of which you just point and click where you want your character to go or what you want him to do. Games like those usually have a deep story or mystery, and you really have to use your head.
Personally, I'd look for some sort of shooter type game. Point and fire, y'know? Improve that head to eye coordination.
If I read this right, this basically suggests that Telcos will not only be your service provider, but also your software provider, and that locally installed software will go the way of the Dodo.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, right.
There's a MAJOR problem with that idea.
People are hesitatant enough paying for software (and only one time, at that) that they can own, control, and in some case can transfer to other machines. People will be even more hesitatant to pay a monthly fee (per machine, at that) for software they rent over a network.
Also, even with this in mind, the software-over-the-net model is one that Microsoft is DESPARATELY looking into. It's the Holy Grail. Think about it: Rather than have you pay $150 for a CD copy of Office with printed box and manual and is prone to cracking and piracy, they'd much rather have you pay $15 a month ($180+ a year, but FAR more over a greater span of time) to be streamed a network copy of Office that can't ever be pirated.
Sorry, not gonna fly with me. If the era of Remote Software comes forth, then I'll just be stuck in the WinXP days forever, I guess... or perhaps then I'll finally get off my ass and learn Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet they can't seem to comprehend the internets and need their 5yr old grandchild to show them how to use an ipad.
"Gotta make some more of this stuff! We'll bring forth the rapture even faster!"
Fisher Price.
Can't tell if trolling, or just redneck.
...is to release it under GPL.
PC Manufacturer: "Sure, we'll provide a utility to disable secure boot! To download it, just enter your serial number. Note that your warranty will now be voided."
> Williams gave the example of one piracy exploit that caused more than a million reported system crashes
Those millions of crashes wouldn't have happened if the DRM wasn't in the OS to begin with. Still Microsoft's fault for adding defective-by-design code that require exploits to correct.
It's like the McCarthy era in a way. No-one opposed his witchhunts lest they be labeled a communist themselves. It doesn't matter how intrusive, unconstitutional, or unethical a law against a sex offender is. It'll almost always pass, lest people start to whisper...
Any politician who doesn't support harsh punishment has practically guaranteed themselves a tremendous loss come election time at the minimum, if not an outright recall.
"He's not in favor of non-sedated castration for sex offenders! I'll bet he reads kiddie porn..."
100mpg can be done, and Detroit knows it. However, a 100mpg car won't sell to anyone except Prius worshipers and Greenpeace flakes in Sacramento.
Even if gas prices keep skyrocketing, highly efficient vehicles will not be embraced by the driving masses (at least, not in the US) unless it has 250hp, seats eight, and treats a boulder like a speed bump.
Oh, and a dual exhaust is a must. Got to have that satisfying throaty roar.
By HBO's definition, if it looks like shit, smells like shit, and tastes like shit, it must be peanut butter.
My wager is that not only will they revoke the key, but they'll prohibit software players entirely on any 32-bit OS platform.
If you guys manage to extract the key while running a 64-bit version of the program, then I'll be impressed.
Class action lawsuits should be brought up against the RIAA, not Kazaa.
The problem that the studios are having is that they don't want a repeat of MTV.
... for virtually nothing. We learned a hard lesson."
But what's that, you say? "MTV was a boon to the music industry, wasn't it?"
And yes, indeed it was. MTV not only promoted popular hits, but it allowed lots of artists that couldn't get airtime on the radio to find an audience via MTV. But, as we all know by now, the industry can't see the forest for the trees.
Here's a quote from this article:
Record companies are keen to avoid repeating the mistake they believe they made when Viacom Inc.'s MTV was set up 25 years ago -- allowing their artists' music to be aired for free.
Morris in his remarks to investors on Tuesday said MTV "built a multibillion-dollar company on our (music)
Yes folks, this is Hollywood's way of saying thank you to MTV. That channel grew a new outlet for music, brought even MORE interest to said music, and helped the music industry make billions, and in spite of all this, the industry is pissed that they gave MTV the tools to do it for free.
And with that in mind, they fear YouTube will be the next MTV, and they want a piece of it. Like usual, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Again. It boggles my mind how utterly near sighted the industry is. It can't see the forest for the trees.
One must truly understand what the RIAA is trying to do here. Their goal isn't recoup lost revenues. Their goal is "shock and awe" through scare tactics. Basically, their lawyers are instructed to take no prisoners, go for the jugular, and show no mercy. It's to send a message meant to scare people into thinking that if you file share, the RIAA mafia will be after you like a rabid bulldog with lockjaw. Any respectful prosecutor would lay off and drop the case out of respect. After all, the accused party is dead, so there's really no point. But no, the RIAA is going to find some way to press onward and make it the whole family's problem now, and they know it'll bring negative publicity. They want it. They want to be feared, and for young little "sharing is caring" tykes to be looking under the bed for the RIAA boogyman at night if they so much as dare think about doing such an evil thing as sharing. This ruthless and heartless behavior is soooooo going to bite the RIAA on the ass someday, hopefully violently.
After those comments, I'll wager their careers are pretty much fscked now.
It depends on how Sony plans to execute this emulation.
Would it be a matter of copying a PSOne game from your old CD onto a memory stick, or would it be a matter of downloading (for a fee, of course) a MagicGate encrypted copy onto a memory stick?
If it's the latter, thanks for nothing. Just more ways to get you to pay over and over for the same damn thing.
Okay, so some people use TiVo to skip product ads. So if product placement becomes more prevalent in place of those ads, I guess that means people will start skipping shows. ^_^
I'll eat a can of spam in his honor. Consequentially, I'll then spend an hour on the shitter in his honor.
This sounds similar to cryogenics. There's still one problem I don't recall seeing a decent solution to.
How are they going to cure freezer burn? ^_^
Newer browsers don't block all advertisements. They block intrusive forms of advertising such as pop-ups. I still see those jiggling impossible-to-focus-your-attention-anywhere-else banner banner ads.
If advertising were passive instead of invasive, people wouldn't mind and wouldn't be going to extremes to get rid of them. Unfortunately, advertisers don't like passive ads because they're easy to ignore (as they should if it's advertising something you could give less than a damn about).
They want ads that grab your attention as if OMFG THIS IS THE HOTTEST THING SINCE SEX AND THE MOMENT YOU SEE THIS YOU'RE GONNA WANNA BUY A BUNCH SO CLICK ME CLICK ME CLICK ME JUST FUCKING CLICK ME, DAMMIT!!!
[click]
Ad: "Welcome to the X10 home automation superstore!"
Me: "Wha...? Why would anybody want this cheesy piece of crap?"
Boycott the RIAA and they'll just blame the decreased sales on piracy. That's their universal excuse for everything.
Q: "How come you're not selling as many CDs?"
A: "Because of piracy."
Q: "Are you sure it isn't because your music sucks?"
A: "Nope. Our research and focus groups have carefully developed a special style and formula that will generate hits as easy as using a cookie cutter. Each one is a guaranteed chart buster. The only reason they aren't is because of piracy."
Q: "What about the people boycotting sales of your CDs? Is that affecting your sales?"
A: "Boycott? Why would anyone boycott us? No, it's only a justification to pirate more music."
Q: "How come you haven't been able to establish a strong market in China?"
A: "Piracy. Duh!"
Q: "What about Antarctica?"
A: "Yup, piracy there too. Damn polar bears."
Q: "I hear that there's a new artist out that's selling really well. Is it because they're finally making fresh music that people enjoy?"
A: "Nope, it's because we've stepped up our efforts to fight piracy."
Q: "So I guess your shit don't stink, huh?"
A: "Pirates keep stealing it, so it doesn't linger long enough for the odor to fester."
Q: "Is there anything good that has come out of piracy?"
A: "Heck yeah! We're reaching incredible profit milestones thanks to our lawsuit business model. I strongly recommend it for any business, but don't follow SCO's example though."
Q: "Is there anything pirates are NOT to blame for?"
A: "Bush getting elected."
April fools joke, eh? Would it be even more of a joke if I said that Apple was going to raise the Itanic? The only fools here are people who think Steve is going to port MacOS to the x86.
Think about it. There is NO CHANCE IN HELL that Stevie will put an x86 processor at the heart of a Mac because it'd basically open the door to clones and homebrews of white-boxes running MacOS. Apple wouldn't dare give its users that much freedom.
No, we're talking ITANIC, baybe!
It makes logical sense, and it's a match made in heaven. AMD64 killed Intel's Itanium game plan in the short term causing sales of the machines to make a huge belly flop, plus it killed Intel's long term plans of eventually replacing the x86 with Itanium rather than slapping on 64-bit capability to the x86 architecture, which AMD did anyway and Intel was forced to adopt.
Intel sure as hell won't let billions of dollars of R&D for this new processor to go down the crapper. The solution? Move the processor to a different platform!
Intel can simply offer its wares to other architectures like the Mac. Plus, Intel has the fabs to make sure that Apple won't be starving for chips, which is a problem Apple constantly griped about with Motorola and IBM.
It'd also give Microsoft one more reason to fear Intel. If Intel is playing both sides of the PC vs. Mac war and suddenly becomes smitten with Microsoft (as they're reported to be lately), Intel would be in a position to play dirty.
Er... Solitare?
Of course, you can also try RPGs, most of which you just point and click where you want your character to go or what you want him to do. Games like those usually have a deep story or mystery, and you really have to use your head.
Personally, I'd look for some sort of shooter type game. Point and fire, y'know? Improve that head to eye coordination.
There's already a parody of the LokiTorrent shutdown.
www.shutdownthis.com
If I read this right, this basically suggests that Telcos will not only be your service provider, but also your software provider, and that locally installed software will go the way of the Dodo. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, right. There's a MAJOR problem with that idea. People are hesitatant enough paying for software (and only one time, at that) that they can own, control, and in some case can transfer to other machines. People will be even more hesitatant to pay a monthly fee (per machine, at that) for software they rent over a network. Also, even with this in mind, the software-over-the-net model is one that Microsoft is DESPARATELY looking into. It's the Holy Grail. Think about it: Rather than have you pay $150 for a CD copy of Office with printed box and manual and is prone to cracking and piracy, they'd much rather have you pay $15 a month ($180+ a year, but FAR more over a greater span of time) to be streamed a network copy of Office that can't ever be pirated. Sorry, not gonna fly with me. If the era of Remote Software comes forth, then I'll just be stuck in the WinXP days forever, I guess... or perhaps then I'll finally get off my ass and learn Linux.