You don't actually read Groklaw, do you? If you did, you'd see it's about as well informed as a pile of canine faeces.
Mostly just a bunch of conspiracy theorists and anti-Microsoft fanbois. And yes, I do include the esteemed PJ in that list (case in point, her ridiculous belief that somehow Microsoft is actually bound by GPL3 for distributing vouchers).
I assure you. The one thing we DON'T have is an actual defence force. Our Minister of Disarmament... er, Prime Minister... disbanded most of that years ago.
Our defence is the crap tons of water surrounding the country. It works, really.
That's OK, I can name at minimum two countries which would immediately file lawsuits against them for violating their local anti-spam acts if they did that:)
The encryption was only half my point - the rest was that the TPM hardware on the integrated drive electronics (were it to have any) is possibly capable of doing what he said. It's all theory of course, since noone knows exactly what the TPM chip is capable of.
It isn't any different. I don't like Apple, but credit where credit is due - they do some good stuff. Mac OS is actually a fairly decent system. They were an integral part of the whole "computer in every home" movement - and so on.
But that said, I was commenting that it's pretty stupid that someone saying that Universal is not the reason for Apple refusing to license FairPlay is modded Flamebait. It may not be a popular opinion, but it certainly shouldn't be getting a flamebait mod. (And note to moderators: people pointing out that your modding is biased and bullshit is not "offtopic").
By the way, Microsoft releasing a store with music only compatible with their own player because they refuse to license the protection technology would evoke the same response from me if they did it (the Zune's protection looks like it might be this new "PlayReady" technology they just started licensing) and I'd encourage an anti-trust suit against them if they did that too (not that Microsoft actually has market share in the media player market, by the way).
Apple should be treated exactly like Microsoft in cases like this - they both hold monopolies, just in different markets (by the way, claiming that Windows is a monopoly when you can in fact choose a competitor means you must consider the iPod a monopoly too)
Is Microsoft also the devil for creating a music and video DRM system at the behest of the studios (one that they deliberately made easy to crack)? Blame the fucking content producers, since they are the ones who dreamt up this crap. I'll have to call you on that. I can assure you, the Windows Media team work long and hard to fix any cracks to the WMDRM platform. FairUse4WM? Wont work with content generated by the latest WMRM server software and targeted for the latest IBX version. The other one that you may or may not have heard of? Same deal.
And just to add for the Apple fanbois, they do the same thing for FairPlay hacks.
It's all to do with the TPM. There's TPM hardware on a lot of modern hard disks too, in the drive electronics. That's part of what makes stuff like BitLocker work - you can't decrypt the contents of the disk (without very powerful, expensive, hardware which you don't have) on any PC but the one that encrypted it. So yes, the hard disk could upload software onto the motherboard, and from there to the operating system.
This is why the GP specified TPM hardware, ordinary stuff cannot do this.
NBC and Universal are basically the same company, right? One is TV and one is music. Is that correct?
That seems to explain why they are sticking together. No. NBC Universal is film and TV. Universal is music. NBC Universal is owned by GE. Universal is owned by Vivendi.
There may well come a time when it makes sense to license Fairplay, but only to companies MS cannot buy. Better yet, moving to open standards without DRM will condition users to not accept DRM'd files in the future and permanently stop MS from locking users in in that way. And Microsoft would, rightfully, open an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple. It is not considered acceptable to operate a licensing scheme in such a manner as to lock out one specific company and license to only companies not affiliated to that one, especially when you have something nearly approaching a monopoly in your market.
Since the Zune can happily play AAC files (which are after all an open standard anyone can support) provided they have enough money, or aren't making any money off the product they create with the standard (it's patented up the arse, just like MP3)
Oh bullshit. You're just making up excuses for why Microsoft doing it is evil, and Apple doing the same thing is for the good of the consumer. Anybody who believes this tripe needs their head surgically removed from Steve Jobs' arse.
FairUse4WM doesn't work with the latest IBX upgrade, unfortunately. And yes, an online store can refuse to serve licenses to clients without the latest version of the IBX (as well as the encryption itself not being able to be decrypted by older IBX versions)
It was split from Vivendi Universal prior to the sale of the other Universal assets.
Interestingly, Vivendi announced this month that they're buying BMG, so we might see some of the BMG music on this service (and other non-DRM paid services) too.
I don't understand why the GP was modded Flamebait. It may not be a popular opinion, but it certainly wasn't flamebait. To claim that's flamebait is to claim that monopolies are only objectionable when they're Microsoft.
Stop with the group mentality bullshit and actually put in some independent thought for a change.
Yes. And in case you weren't aware, Microsoft increased the IBX (Individualisation component, core of the DRM tech) version when they patched that vulnerability, and a WMRM (Windows Media Rights Manager) server can refuse to license a client if it doesn't have at least version x.x.x.x of the IBX. So rolling back to WM9 wont work on any implementation who really doesn't want it to work for you.
Or Nothing Interactive. You might have seen mention of said company at the ending credits of Quake I. Which also mentioned Nine Inch Nails, incidentally. But you should know that already.
You cannot use Vista under ANY type of virtualization unless it's Ultimate or Enterprise edition. And my post is pointing out that your post is inaccurate. Microsoft themselves have said, use it under virtualisation if you want, but you cannot use the same license for the guest as the host. I.e. you must have additional licenses to virtualise it. Enterprise and Ultimate have the "server provision" allowing you to run up to four virtual machines using the same license as the host for the guests.
USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
The key part is installed on the licensed device. This means that you cannot install your copy of Home/Home Premium in a virtual machine that is running on your already installed copy of Home/Home Premium. For all intents and purposes, you are installing the OS twice, on two different hardware platforms.
All versions of Windows are transferrable provided you destroy any copies you have (Not a Lawyer, just read an EULA out of boredom once). OEM copies are required to be transferred, because according to Microsoft they belong to the PC not the purchaser. They do offer a discount in exchange for that sacrifice (OEM pricing), so if you don't like it then buy retail is the perception.
Similar problem with virtual machines. Running a virtual machine, you CAN just move an installation of Windows from hardware to hardware.
Microsoft's solution? Vista won't run under virtualization. FUD. Runs fine (though probably a tad slowly, but just turn Aero the fuck off and you'll be right) under virtualisation. And the license only says that you can't use the same license you used for the host in guest machines unless it's Ultimate or Enterprise edition.
There's plenty of real things about Vista to bitch about, so stop making shit up.
No, it's a 1.4GHz. As I said though, it is a notebook and as such the number doesn't mean exactly the same thing - you are right there. It's a Sempron Mobile 1700+ I believe, which clocks in (according to the BIOS and Windows) at 1.4GHz. If you must look at the specs, it's an Acer 3054WXMI (though I've upped the RAM to 1GB).
Slashdot Mirror
You don't actually read Groklaw, do you? If you did, you'd see it's about as well informed as a pile of canine faeces.
Mostly just a bunch of conspiracy theorists and anti-Microsoft fanbois. And yes, I do include the esteemed PJ in that list (case in point, her ridiculous belief that somehow Microsoft is actually bound by GPL3 for distributing vouchers).
I assure you. The one thing we DON'T have is an actual defence force. Our Minister of Disarmament ... er, Prime Minister ... disbanded most of that years ago.
Our defence is the crap tons of water surrounding the country. It works, really.
To me in my country, that's like 3 or 4 grand. Apple is NOT an option for realistic gaming, because Apple overcharges too much.
That's OK, I can name at minimum two countries which would immediately file lawsuits against them for violating their local anti-spam acts if they did that :)
The encryption was only half my point - the rest was that the TPM hardware on the integrated drive electronics (were it to have any) is possibly capable of doing what he said. It's all theory of course, since noone knows exactly what the TPM chip is capable of.
It isn't any different. I don't like Apple, but credit where credit is due - they do some good stuff. Mac OS is actually a fairly decent system. They were an integral part of the whole "computer in every home" movement - and so on.
But that said, I was commenting that it's pretty stupid that someone saying that Universal is not the reason for Apple refusing to license FairPlay is modded Flamebait. It may not be a popular opinion, but it certainly shouldn't be getting a flamebait mod. (And note to moderators: people pointing out that your modding is biased and bullshit is not "offtopic").
By the way, Microsoft releasing a store with music only compatible with their own player because they refuse to license the protection technology would evoke the same response from me if they did it (the Zune's protection looks like it might be this new "PlayReady" technology they just started licensing) and I'd encourage an anti-trust suit against them if they did that too (not that Microsoft actually has market share in the media player market, by the way).
Apple should be treated exactly like Microsoft in cases like this - they both hold monopolies, just in different markets (by the way, claiming that Windows is a monopoly when you can in fact choose a competitor means you must consider the iPod a monopoly too)
It's twitter. What were you expecting?
On the drivers thing, drivers that work in User Mode don't need signing, but Kernel Mode ones do in 64-bit.
By the way, what's a Cablecard?
Meh, maybe I should go for a walk down the road to the university and throw Guttman a clue.
And just to add for the Apple fanbois, they do the same thing for FairPlay hacks.
It's all to do with the TPM. There's TPM hardware on a lot of modern hard disks too, in the drive electronics. That's part of what makes stuff like BitLocker work - you can't decrypt the contents of the disk (without very powerful, expensive, hardware which you don't have) on any PC but the one that encrypted it. So yes, the hard disk could upload software onto the motherboard, and from there to the operating system.
This is why the GP specified TPM hardware, ordinary stuff cannot do this.
I tried to read your PDF but just got a 410 gone from some other random site. Slashdotted?
That seems to explain why they are sticking together. No. NBC Universal is film and TV. Universal is music. NBC Universal is owned by GE. Universal is owned by Vivendi.
Oh bullshit. You're just making up excuses for why Microsoft doing it is evil, and Apple doing the same thing is for the good of the consumer. Anybody who believes this tripe needs their head surgically removed from Steve Jobs' arse.
FairUse4WM doesn't work with the latest IBX upgrade, unfortunately. And yes, an online store can refuse to serve licenses to clients without the latest version of the IBX (as well as the encryption itself not being able to be decrypted by older IBX versions)
No, it's free. Stop trying to redefine free, the word's existed for far longer than either you or Richard Stallman have.
Actually, Universal MUSIC is still owned by Vivendi SA.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Music
It was split from Vivendi Universal prior to the sale of the other Universal assets.
Interestingly, Vivendi announced this month that they're buying BMG, so we might see some of the BMG music on this service (and other non-DRM paid services) too.
I don't understand why the GP was modded Flamebait. It may not be a popular opinion, but it certainly wasn't flamebait. To claim that's flamebait is to claim that monopolies are only objectionable when they're Microsoft.
Stop with the group mentality bullshit and actually put in some independent thought for a change.
Yes. And in case you weren't aware, Microsoft increased the IBX (Individualisation component, core of the DRM tech) version when they patched that vulnerability, and a WMRM (Windows Media Rights Manager) server can refuse to license a client if it doesn't have at least version x.x.x.x of the IBX. So rolling back to WM9 wont work on any implementation who really doesn't want it to work for you.
Or Nothing Interactive. You might have seen mention of said company at the ending credits of Quake I. Which also mentioned Nine Inch Nails, incidentally. But you should know that already.
Read thread: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=280655
Post on page 2 by Paulo (who has the little Windows "Microsoft Employee" flag):
You lose.
All versions of Windows are transferrable provided you destroy any copies you have (Not a Lawyer, just read an EULA out of boredom once). OEM copies are required to be transferred, because according to Microsoft they belong to the PC not the purchaser. They do offer a discount in exchange for that sacrifice (OEM pricing), so if you don't like it then buy retail is the perception.
Microsoft's solution? Vista won't run under virtualization. FUD. Runs fine (though probably a tad slowly, but just turn Aero the fuck off and you'll be right) under virtualisation. And the license only says that you can't use the same license you used for the host in guest machines unless it's Ultimate or Enterprise edition.
There's plenty of real things about Vista to bitch about, so stop making shit up.
No, it's a 1.4GHz. As I said though, it is a notebook and as such the number doesn't mean exactly the same thing - you are right there. It's a Sempron Mobile 1700+ I believe, which clocks in (according to the BIOS and Windows) at 1.4GHz. If you must look at the specs, it's an Acer 3054WXMI (though I've upped the RAM to 1GB).