Interesting. I'd heard that TPM was shipping with the x86 version of TPM as protection. I don't have a particular problem with TPM but it'll be interesting to see how this develops.
Well, that's fine then. What I mean, though, is that so long as these things are optional, it's fine. If it's not optional for WMP11, that's a black mark against WMP11, yes.
But it's a good word, is the point. I guess it fits in some contexts but you're right to point out that it's not what I meant. Bonus vocabulary points to you, sir.
I agree with most of what you write; the same thing applies to people refusing Vista because it contains DRM. It's not like one is forced to use the technology in any way. I do have a little problem with this bit though:
DRM is only there if you want it there. It's not some dirty little secret like it is with the subscription services.
DRM isn't any more of a "dirty secret" in subscription services than it is in iTMS, I'm afraid. In both cases, the restrictions are clear (arguably they're more clear in the case of subscription services, since they're essentially an essential part of the description), and generally nothing significant is left out.
The bottom line is that Apple, Microsoft, et al may be shipping insidious DRM technologies, but there's no obligation to use them.
What you need to do is hold back on producing all those "fun" bugs that we all introduce into systems until you've the reputation as one of the best coders in the world, then go work for NASA and just go wild on some system that won't be used until it's in deep space and you're off working for Google, having destroyed the paper trail.
Fair enough, I've not used either piece of software and I know several happy FCP users, so I'll not try to argue that Premiere's "better" in any way. In any case, competition is always a good thing.:)
That's quite an old version of Premiere though; I'm not sure that you can so validly hold comparisons made with such an old version of software. You seem to hold that your comparison is as relevant now as it was when you made it, which seems very unlikely. I mean, the current series of the software started again at 1.0 for what would have been Premiere 7.0 in mid-2003, so your comparison was probably made with a piece of software that's had about 5 years of development on it since you used it...
I'm not saying you're wrong that Final Cut Pro is great; I hear that all the time. What worries me is that (especially in software) comparisons made on such archaic versions of a product are almost never relevant to the current one.
I think that the fact that modern ARM processor development doesn't focus on desktop use mitigates that, though. I suppose the post you were replying to should've noted that the sales they referred to would need to be in the field of the discussion.
I do wonder if enough development has gone into ARM to make powerful-enough versions for portable computers (on a, say, laptop scale), though. Their focus on efficiency due to their primary use might yield a system with a very long battery life compared to what we have, even considering how much work has gone into improving x86 in this field lately.
Not unless the software modelled the task using the same mechanism as the hardware, which is unlikely. The fact that two things do the same thing is not necessarily patent-infringing, only that they do it in the same way.
The patent appears to be on hardware mechanisms which would be useful in making a Bluetooth component. As far as I can tell these mechanisms are not required for a compliant Bluetooth implementation, they just help make a good implementation. The claim seems to be that a chip provider used by the companies being sued is using these patented hardware mechanisms without licensing them, not that all Bluetooth implementations are infringing. Seems strange they're not going straight to the chip manufacturer though.
Just as a little bit of a correction here, although the H10 series didn't play Vorbis, the newer players from iriver such as the U10/Clix and the E10 have reintroduced support. Vorbis is quite a complex codec to decode, so one wonders if it was a technical limitation (although Rockbox on the H10, I believe, can play Vorbis).
Quite the opposite. The contents don't coincide, but non-DRMed sites have a lot more content (and demand).
I doubt that there's more demand for the content on non-DRMed sites, but the benefits (and lack of a "downside" compared to CDs) is likely to help them out. As for them having more content, what's to stop a DRMed site selling some DRMed tracks and some non-DRMed tracks, depending on the publisher?
By "exhaustive collection" I meant in terms of popular, mainstream music, rather than "good" music (which I could quite believe being the case with non-DRMed sites) and sheer volume (which is something else I could believe, but obviously lots and lots of specialist or unknown artists do not a good collection make).
I suppose there's an interesting challenge with making what is considered "indie" nowadays into the mainstream; with modern technology and so on there's less of a barrier to entry to the music-making market, so the only real challenge that remains as regards competing with major producers is marketing. I'm kinda interested to see what, if anything, happens with that.
I think the GP's point still stands, though. As much as many of us see that content should be released without DRM limitations, and as much as eMusic is succeeding to provide such a service, it is simply not possible to have an exhaustive collection compared to DRMed sites until content providers co-operate.
Furthermore, international licensing agreements (whether one agrees with their existence or not) can have effect on the terms under which one can licence even one's own content (in the case of the BBC). It may be that due to distribution rules, the BBC are not allowed to distribute content in certain ways. The internet is extremely poorly-covered in existing copyright and licensing law, and we all know what the new laws which are coming in to "fix" these shortfalls look like.
Back on-topic, though, I don't think the "Who cares about mainstream bands? Check out this indie stuff!" line holds out too well in Real Life as an argument in favour of eMusic. Perhaps for "real music lovers", who are willing to go and find things which please them, but the majority of people simply don't belong to that group. They want the mainstream music that they hear on the radio and that their friends are talking about.
The real challenge is either encourage mainstream labels/producers to drop draconian content "protection" systems (extremely unlikely), and/or to use other facets of emerging technology as a starting point for the "next" big labels.
At a guess, the file is encrypted and you need to obtain a key (or "licence", terminology is stupid) which can decrypt it, and that is what is tied to your computer.
Surely, given the speed that these suites tend to be developed, this comparison is tragically out of date by now? There were a few pieces of comparison which gave the impression that it needed to be updated ("Expect PostgreSQL 8.x to continue this trend."), and I'm fairly sure that both systems have advanced considerably in most, if not all, of the criteria specified.
What a pain. Cheers for that clarification. I realise it's not rare, but it is an interoperability issue rather than a direct issue with Java in and of itself.
I think the Slash code adds the rel="nofollow" attribute to links posted by any user that doesn't get the "karma bonus"; I've noticed it's attached to some posted links and not others, and that, from my very limited check just there, seems to be the relation. So only users with good karma can spam their blogs;)
To be fair to Sun and to Swing, they have been improving that library greatly in the last while. The version of Swing which comes with Java 6 (released the other day) is actually really quite good.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. I'd heard that TPM was shipping with the x86 version of TPM as protection. I don't have a particular problem with TPM but it'll be interesting to see how this develops.
Well, that's fine then. What I mean, though, is that so long as these things are optional, it's fine. If it's not optional for WMP11, that's a black mark against WMP11, yes.
Why not choose to use some third-party software which works on Vista?
This is obviously another issue, similar to the TPM protection which (apparently?) now ships with OS X.
But it's a good word, is the point. I guess it fits in some contexts but you're right to point out that it's not what I meant. Bonus vocabulary points to you, sir.
I agree with most of what you write; the same thing applies to people refusing Vista because it contains DRM. It's not like one is forced to use the technology in any way. I do have a little problem with this bit though:
DRM isn't any more of a "dirty secret" in subscription services than it is in iTMS, I'm afraid. In both cases, the restrictions are clear (arguably they're more clear in the case of subscription services, since they're essentially an essential part of the description), and generally nothing significant is left out.
The bottom line is that Apple, Microsoft, et al may be shipping insidious DRM technologies, but there's no obligation to use them.
What you need to do is hold back on producing all those "fun" bugs that we all introduce into systems until you've the reputation as one of the best coders in the world, then go work for NASA and just go wild on some system that won't be used until it's in deep space and you're off working for Google, having destroyed the paper trail.
No sandbox can avoid the fact that one test was missing.
People who want the support that only you can provide since you don't release the source code to anyone.
Fair enough, I've not used either piece of software and I know several happy FCP users, so I'll not try to argue that Premiere's "better" in any way. In any case, competition is always a good thing. :)
That's quite an old version of Premiere though; I'm not sure that you can so validly hold comparisons made with such an old version of software. You seem to hold that your comparison is as relevant now as it was when you made it, which seems very unlikely. I mean, the current series of the software started again at 1.0 for what would have been Premiere 7.0 in mid-2003, so your comparison was probably made with a piece of software that's had about 5 years of development on it since you used it...
I'm not saying you're wrong that Final Cut Pro is great; I hear that all the time. What worries me is that (especially in software) comparisons made on such archaic versions of a product are almost never relevant to the current one.
I think that the fact that modern ARM processor development doesn't focus on desktop use mitigates that, though. I suppose the post you were replying to should've noted that the sales they referred to would need to be in the field of the discussion.
I do wonder if enough development has gone into ARM to make powerful-enough versions for portable computers (on a, say, laptop scale), though. Their focus on efficiency due to their primary use might yield a system with a very long battery life compared to what we have, even considering how much work has gone into improving x86 in this field lately.
Not unless the software modelled the task using the same mechanism as the hardware, which is unlikely. The fact that two things do the same thing is not necessarily patent-infringing, only that they do it in the same way.
The patent appears to be on hardware mechanisms which would be useful in making a Bluetooth component. As far as I can tell these mechanisms are not required for a compliant Bluetooth implementation, they just help make a good implementation. The claim seems to be that a chip provider used by the companies being sued is using these patented hardware mechanisms without licensing them, not that all Bluetooth implementations are infringing. Seems strange they're not going straight to the chip manufacturer though.
Just as a little bit of a correction here, although the H10 series didn't play Vorbis, the newer players from iriver such as the U10/Clix and the E10 have reintroduced support. Vorbis is quite a complex codec to decode, so one wonders if it was a technical limitation (although Rockbox on the H10, I believe, can play Vorbis).
I doubt that there's more demand for the content on non-DRMed sites, but the benefits (and lack of a "downside" compared to CDs) is likely to help them out. As for them having more content, what's to stop a DRMed site selling some DRMed tracks and some non-DRMed tracks, depending on the publisher?
By "exhaustive collection" I meant in terms of popular, mainstream music, rather than "good" music (which I could quite believe being the case with non-DRMed sites) and sheer volume (which is something else I could believe, but obviously lots and lots of specialist or unknown artists do not a good collection make).
I suppose there's an interesting challenge with making what is considered "indie" nowadays into the mainstream; with modern technology and so on there's less of a barrier to entry to the music-making market, so the only real challenge that remains as regards competing with major producers is marketing. I'm kinda interested to see what, if anything, happens with that.
I think the GP's point still stands, though. As much as many of us see that content should be released without DRM limitations, and as much as eMusic is succeeding to provide such a service, it is simply not possible to have an exhaustive collection compared to DRMed sites until content providers co-operate.
Furthermore, international licensing agreements (whether one agrees with their existence or not) can have effect on the terms under which one can licence even one's own content (in the case of the BBC). It may be that due to distribution rules, the BBC are not allowed to distribute content in certain ways. The internet is extremely poorly-covered in existing copyright and licensing law, and we all know what the new laws which are coming in to "fix" these shortfalls look like.
Back on-topic, though, I don't think the "Who cares about mainstream bands? Check out this indie stuff!" line holds out too well in Real Life as an argument in favour of eMusic. Perhaps for "real music lovers", who are willing to go and find things which please them, but the majority of people simply don't belong to that group. They want the mainstream music that they hear on the radio and that their friends are talking about.
The real challenge is either encourage mainstream labels/producers to drop draconian content "protection" systems (extremely unlikely), and/or to use other facets of emerging technology as a starting point for the "next" big labels.
At a guess, the file is encrypted and you need to obtain a key (or "licence", terminology is stupid) which can decrypt it, and that is what is tied to your computer.
I think more "belated"...
Well, it appears that just about everyone else managed to type that comment quicker than me. Curses.
Surely, given the speed that these suites tend to be developed, this comparison is tragically out of date by now? There were a few pieces of comparison which gave the impression that it needed to be updated ("Expect PostgreSQL 8.x to continue this trend."), and I'm fairly sure that both systems have advanced considerably in most, if not all, of the criteria specified.
Yeah, along with (generally) requiring a VM, I suppose. I expect it was something of a pain in the ass for the JNode team...
What a pain. Cheers for that clarification. I realise it's not rare, but it is an interoperability issue rather than a direct issue with Java in and of itself.
By "emulate unsigned arithmetic", do you mean jumping to the max value when you remove one from zero? Is this something you need to do frequently?
I think the Slash code adds the rel="nofollow" attribute to links posted by any user that doesn't get the "karma bonus"; I've noticed it's attached to some posted links and not others, and that, from my very limited check just there, seems to be the relation. So only users with good karma can spam their blogs ;)
To be fair to Sun and to Swing, they have been improving that library greatly in the last while. The version of Swing which comes with Java 6 (released the other day) is actually really quite good.