The article is talking about sites where you put information about yourself- myspace, facebook, etc., and how they're worth so much- because of how much infromation people will give out about themselves.
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, that can be edited anonymously, without ads. So few are interested in buying it at an insane price.
Before you get all excited about the prospect of dedicating 96 pixel shaders, 2GB of memory, and 1.1 billion transistors to pumping out boatloads of eye candy inside your PC, however, there's some bad news. NVIDIA says Quad SLI will, at least for now, remain the exclusive realm of PC system builders like Alienware, Dell, and Falcon Northwest because of the "complexity" involved.
So they are going to alienate the majority of the market that would spend the money on a Quad SLI setup to keep it exclusive to system builders for whatever period of time.
Seems like a bad business decision to me, at least until (and if) Nvidia comes to their senses.
Why in the world would you buy a "Pre-N" router? You need a compatible card and router, which is not cheap, and will probably be incompatible.
The title is also decieving;
"The current draft of the 802.11n standard was approved for letter ballot in March; the full standard is expected to be ratified by the second quarter of 2007."
So anything you buy will not work with what you buy when it's fully ratified. Pre-g, anyone?
"During eWEEK Labs' tests, Linksys products based on Version 1.0 of the 802.11n draft standard were indeed fast--faster than anything we've tested to date--but issues with range and interference with legacy wireless networks show room for improvement."
Speed may be important, but reliability is more important. Most internet connections aren't even close to that fast, and if it doesn't have range or reliability, why would you use it on a LAN?
Gamers, who would benifit from this, use wired mice for similar reasons; batteries don't die in wired mice, no lag, no problems. Same reasons that they wouldn't use 802.11n: If 802.11n can't deliver reliability, why use it?
And backwards compatibility? That's one of the most important points of all! Sheesh.
DRM doesn't prevent piracy. It just takes our rights.
Which is easier:
A) Buying a copy of a song on iTunes with a mediocre bitrate, many limits, and incompatible with most players, or
B) Downloading a copy in an extremely high bitrate, in a format that many players use?
DRM drives people to piracy, it doesn't prevent it. Songs I buy in iTunes can't be played, for example, when I plug my iPod in my Xbox 360. MP3s can. Burning it to CD and ripping is lossy, and the bitrate is so-so. If I buy the song, shouldn't I be entitled to a copy I can play on many devices?
People download MP3's because their versatile, not free.
The RIAA approved players will make your listening experience safer and better.
Now, your player will connect to a world wide marketing database to automatically determine if your player has pirated music! Any song you spent less than $2 or converted is likely to have pirated, so your player will delete the music for you!
You'll need to rebuy the song every year to support your artists continually. And your songs will only play on this player with the same set of batteries-if anything changes, your license has expired and you'll need to buy more music, that you can only listen to during off-peak hours. Peak hours, 7:00am to 7:00pm, will cost twice as much in order to support the "artists".
DRM-making your life better (TM)! Buy this so the RIAA can get another Benz...I mean, support the artists.
Dual cores, quad cores, whatever, I can understand that for multitasking and programming. But 768 cores? What would possibly use that many cores? And for any single task, the thing would not be efficient.
What exactly is the point of this? Bragging rights?
While it is an interesting new technology, the user will probably make a code that is too simple-1 or 3 knocks.
While you can't picklock a key locked door, I would imagine that guessing - or, even easier - listening - to the knock would be enough to be able to open the door.
This is ridiculous. Why stop the resale of old electronics? Electronics IMPROVE over time - why stop the resale of old ones?
As technology is phased out, it is hard to get unless resold - i.e. the Famicom. So you can't buy an old electronic?
Buying older games for my N64 doesn't provide any competition to my buying of games for my Xbox 360. The N64 is different, and I can get classics for it. I can get better (looking) games for my 360.
My point? Old electronics don't compete with new ones. To stop resale could kill older collectibles, like older video game systems or old formats (VHS, or in a few years, DVD). Heck, it could even kill formats...
When Dick submitted his film for a rating, he asked in an e-mail for assurances that "no copies would be made of any part or all of the film," according to a copy of the e-mail exchange.
In a reply e-mail, an MPAA representative did not specifically say the organization wouldn't copy the film, but did say "the confidentiality of your film... is our first priority. Please feel assure (sic) that your film is in good hands." ------
So, technically, they did not say that they wouldn't copy it.
However, it is STILL a violation of the DCMA, and one that the author should sue for.
I don't think there will be a wall soon, even if we hit it eventually.
While processors have been increasing in heat recently, over time, cooling has become better. Early computers were the size of whole, air conditioned rooms!
I know that we're talking 20-30 years ago, but the idea is the same; for the most part, technology has become smaller and previous solutions are still suitable. One example is the cell phone. And computers have been getting more powerful and smaller as well; laptops as thin as your finger (with the battery!) and mobile processors that run cool and fast.
Of course, the opposite is true; heat has increased in other fields. Fanless graphics cards are becoming a rarer sight.
The idea of using iris scanning is undoubtably cool, but is it ready for real life application?
The system, according to the article, is four adults for each kid. Is that a great idea? Parents and one set of grandparents. What happens when the four are out and someone else needs to pick up the kid, like an aunt or uncle?
In other ways, its a great idea; You're not going anywhere without your eyes. But the current technical limitations are bad. Also, the cost is also an issue.
Of course, protection is needed. What's wrong with a swipe card? Or RFID keychains? A little more expensive to implement, but then you run the risk of losing one and having access.
I think that humans and technology combined are the solution. Facial recognition with a name lookup. Look up the kid and see pictures of the authorized guardians. You have to pay someone to do it, but it is by far the best: One person monitors and lets people in. The only problem with that is that it is subject to human error.
The real problem is that every solution has a problem; cost, errors, or otherwise. I'm sure this stuff will be sorted out in a few years.
The iPod is the thing that (most) people think when they think of an MP3 player...and the iTunes/iPod combo makes Apple great money. <br/> <br/> But when the iPod eventually flops (when Apple makes a mistake), ITMS will probably go with it.
I don't know, it just bugs me how poorly laid out these web sites are.
For example, I am not going to buy something just because it's in the middle of the article. For free sites, ads are fine with me; but when they're simply intrusive, I draw the line.
Let's take some other tech sites for example. Some PCMagazine.com articles look interesting, but I avoid them completely because they put ads in the middle.
Free registration is also boneheaded- if you're going to put ads, why do it WITHOUT registering? You let less people see them!
The other problem-due to the (vast) difference between print design and web design, is how hard it is to find interesting content. How about-I don't know, experiment a bit. Try laying it out as an ACTUAL newspaper, where each link is a headline. Put a short description. Then, people might find interesting news...
One last thing is the complete irrelevance of ads on many major news sites-While I am often interested by ads on specific sites (slashdot even), I hate when I'm reading an article on healthcare and an ad to "Hit Osama for a free PSP!" pops up. It's annoying and makes sure I won't click on the ad.
At the present moment, the current estimated cost per wafer is $9000-$10,000, with about 65 good chips per wafer. So, the current estimated cost per chip is $150 and $175 on the board.
Now, don't get me wrong, Sony is pretty wealthy. But how can they afford that? $175 and no drive, GPU or anything.
Sony will obviously go into the red in order to be competitively priced.
Sony:
A) Wants to sell it in the red to be competitively priced. While standalone Blu-Ray players will be an estimated $1,000 , you can get a killer game console AND blu-ray player for less!
B) Lock consumers into the system with some good launch games and better specs.
C) Once there is enough of a base, Blu-ray will be the obvious choice for movie producers and consumers as a storage format.
I'm in doubt of this. Between the rootkit and Betamax, the memory stick, etc., the players/burners will be overpriced and Sony will keep it to themselves. The format will probably be designed with Sony and "movie producer rights" in mind vs. the consumer. I am in doubt that the console alone will be able to make Blu-Ray a success.
Re:Dvorak also said cable modems were stupid
on
Prepping For The 360
·
· Score: 1
It was formatted but when the comment submitted it clumped it together.
Dvorak also said cable modems were stupid
on
Prepping For The 360
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Quote Dvorak, circa 1995:
"The noisiest buzz in the industry lately has been over the emerging use of cable TV systems to provide fast network data transmissions using a device called a cable modem. But the likelihood of this technology succeeding is zilch. It's one of those interesting-sounding ideas that will attract what venture capitalists call dumb money. Unfortunately, it's a big distraction in a market that should be concentrating on ISDN and broadband.
HP, U.S. Robotics, ZDS, and others have been toying with the idea for a few years, and Motorola Multimedia Group's recently announced CyberSurfer 10-Mbps cable modem has completely muddied the waters. There's also LANCity's announced $595 model. Until recently, these things cost a ridiculous $5,000.
Cable modems are, of course, targeted at Net surfers. According to the press announcement, the CyberSurfer will be the fastest, receiving data at 10 Mbps and sending it at 768 Kbps. Exactly how the modem will work on the largely one-way cable systems in the U.S. is a mystery. And since there's no governing standards organization for cable modems, these devices won't be able to talk to modems made by anyone else. But hey, they sure are fast.
Even so, users with access to a T1 phone connection will soon discover that the fastest provider can send data at only around 56 Kbps--slower than a single B-channel over ISDN. This isn't likely to change as providers try to serve as many users as possible, rather than pump 128 Kbps or more to a few people. So the ideal connection for Net surfing is a single B-channel on an ISDN line.
So even if you had a 10-Mbps cable connection, it would be useless except for point-to-point transfer at Motorola's upstream speed of 768 Kbps. And that assumes upstream capability, which the cable companies will have available in only a few test areas. If users don't flock to this technology in those areas, the cable companies will drop the idea like a hot potato.
We have to remember that, collectively, the cable TV folks are as dumb as fireplugs. There is no incentive to be otherwise. They have monopolies and do little more than string wire and milk the cash cow. Why would they want to get mixed up in something that requires real work? If you doubt this, visit your local cable company and ask "When will you have cable modem capability?" Just see what they say. My guess: "Huh? What's a modem?"
Then there is the issue of security. The cable TV system is a broadcast medium, not a secure network. All transmissions over cable are highly susceptible to hacking. Much more so than anything else except cellular phones. HP is one company that harps on the security issues regarding cable modems.
So why spin our wheels over a dead-end technology when ISDN is here now? Is speed really the issue?
There may be another element at play. When you consider digital phone networks and the equipment that is needed to hook up ISDN, you see an interesting phenomenon. The modem companies aren't in the game. Networking companies run the show: Ascend, Cisco, and Combinet. Modem companies like Hayes--and recently Zyxel--miss the mark with ISDN. Others have ignored it completely.
In a digital world, you won't need to MOdulate/ DEModulate (the root meaning of modem). Many users just can't make the transition to a future where the modem is moot. For these sentimentalists, the cable modem is the last gasp. But there are no cable modem standards whatsoever, and very little cable modem promotion within the brain-dead cable TV industry. While this fiasco unfolds, we hear cheering from people who should know better and examine the simple illogic of the whole thing.
Hey, but it sure is fast."
Why do we spin our wheels over a dead-end technology when ISDN is here now? Is speed really the issue?
360 is impressive, has potential, but needs time
on
Prepping For The 360
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The Xbox 360 is undoubtably a monster of a machine, and one that Microsoft naturally takes much pride in. But Microsoft is going to be in the red for a while, and they will need to make the money back. Once the gaming base gets them up and out, my guess is that major innovation will start to keep buyers away from the PS3 and Gamecube (which shouldn't be too hard-the estimated cost per cell chip is stellar (theinquirer.net) and Nintendo has an undeserved reputation as merely a "kiddy" system.)
If they can do that, the 360 will profit. Microsoft will pretty much be forced to innovate, and consumers should win this battle.
AJAX is a good idea for larger services, like Gmail, that many people use and it is completely seamless.
However, AJAX is much harder to code, and it's not necessary for a smaller company, which doesn't need the marginal gains vs. the coding.
Still, for a large company like Google, it takes less time to load (which makes Gmail seem better) and also saves bandwidth.
Recalling the CD's is merely a slap on the wrist. It doesn't cost Sony as nearly as much money as a lawsuit, costs Amazon money, and it does not repair the damage to numerous artists names by this rootkit.
If Sony actually would own up to their stupid mistake, the artists wouldn't be impacted so much. Look at Van Dant's CD on Amazon. 1.5 stars, 300 reviews, most mentioning the rootkit. Do you think that he'll fare so well in the future.
I have lost faith in Sony. Propietary formats and other things were a little odd, but I accepted them. But rootkits, a patent for games that only play on the console they were originally put in...seems like a ridiculous infringement on user rights.
Rather than losing money to pirates, people will turn to better solutions and Sony will be the loser.
If there is an ad-supported version of Windows, the ads would be intergrated on the level of the operating system (like a rootkit). Doesn't this sound like a bad idea? What will happen when a less-than-well-intending firm finds out how to use the ad system and hijack it? It would be almost, if not impossible, to remove.
Slashdot Mirror
The article is talking about sites where you put information about yourself- myspace, facebook, etc., and how they're worth so much- because of how much infromation people will give out about themselves.
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, that can be edited anonymously, without ads. So few are interested in buying it at an insane price.
I have to ask; how much is the data worth when a good part of the data is fake?
I think that myspace is a cesspool, but everyone my age has one. I'll give you a hint: They aren't in their mid thirties earning 250k+ a year.
No matter how much data you have, if it isn't true it;s worthless.
At the current development rate, it may just meet the minimum requirements!
The review states:
Before you get all excited about the prospect of dedicating 96 pixel shaders, 2GB of memory, and 1.1 billion transistors to pumping out boatloads of eye candy inside your PC, however, there's some bad news. NVIDIA says Quad SLI will, at least for now, remain the exclusive realm of PC system builders like Alienware, Dell, and Falcon Northwest because of the "complexity" involved.
So they are going to alienate the majority of the market that would spend the money on a Quad SLI setup to keep it exclusive to system builders for whatever period of time.
Seems like a bad business decision to me, at least until (and if) Nvidia comes to their senses.
GameDaily reports on the first major Xbox Live update since the launch of the Xbox 360. From the article:
Why in the world would you buy a "Pre-N" router? You need a compatible card and router, which is not cheap, and will probably be incompatible.
The title is also decieving;
"The current draft of the 802.11n standard was approved for letter ballot in March; the full standard is expected to be ratified by the second quarter of 2007."
So anything you buy will not work with what you buy when it's fully ratified. Pre-g, anyone?
"During eWEEK Labs' tests, Linksys products based on Version 1.0 of the 802.11n draft standard were indeed fast--faster than anything we've tested to date--but issues with range and interference with legacy wireless networks show room for improvement."
Speed may be important, but reliability is more important. Most internet connections aren't even close to that fast, and if it doesn't have range or reliability, why would you use it on a LAN?
Gamers, who would benifit from this, use wired mice for similar reasons; batteries don't die in wired mice, no lag, no problems. Same reasons that they wouldn't use 802.11n: If 802.11n can't deliver reliability, why use it?
And backwards compatibility? That's one of the most important points of all! Sheesh.
DRM doesn't prevent piracy. It just takes our rights.
Which is easier:
A) Buying a copy of a song on iTunes with a mediocre bitrate, many limits, and incompatible with most players, or
B) Downloading a copy in an extremely high bitrate, in a format that many players use?
DRM drives people to piracy, it doesn't prevent it. Songs I buy in iTunes can't be played, for example, when I plug my iPod in my Xbox 360. MP3s can. Burning it to CD and ripping is lossy, and the bitrate is so-so. If I buy the song, shouldn't I be entitled to a copy I can play on many devices?
People download MP3's because their versatile, not free.
The RIAA approved players will make your listening experience safer and better.
Now, your player will connect to a world wide marketing database to automatically determine if your player has pirated music! Any song you spent less than $2 or converted is likely to have pirated, so your player will delete the music for you!
You'll need to rebuy the song every year to support your artists continually. And your songs will only play on this player with the same set of batteries-if anything changes, your license has expired and you'll need to buy more music, that you can only listen to during off-peak hours. Peak hours, 7:00am to 7:00pm, will cost twice as much in order to support the "artists".
DRM-making your life better (TM)! Buy this so the RIAA can get another Benz...I mean, support the artists.
Dual cores, quad cores, whatever, I can understand that for multitasking and programming. But 768 cores? What would possibly use that many cores? And for any single task, the thing would not be efficient. What exactly is the point of this? Bragging rights?
While it is an interesting new technology, the user will probably make a code that is too simple-1 or 3 knocks.
While you can't picklock a key locked door, I would imagine that guessing - or, even easier - listening - to the knock would be enough to be able to open the door.
This is ridiculous. Why stop the resale of old electronics? Electronics IMPROVE over time - why stop the resale of old ones?
As technology is phased out, it is hard to get unless resold - i.e. the Famicom. So you can't buy an old electronic?
Buying older games for my N64 doesn't provide any competition to my buying of games for my Xbox 360. The N64 is different, and I can get classics for it. I can get better (looking) games for my 360.
My point? Old electronics don't compete with new ones. To stop resale could kill older collectibles, like older video game systems or old formats (VHS, or in a few years, DVD). Heck, it could even kill formats...
When Dick submitted his film for a rating, he asked in an e-mail for assurances that "no copies would be made of any part or all of the film," according to a copy of the e-mail exchange.
... is our first priority. Please feel assure (sic) that your film is in good hands."
In a reply e-mail, an MPAA representative did not specifically say the organization wouldn't copy the film, but did say "the confidentiality of your film
------
So, technically, they did not say that they wouldn't copy it.
However, it is STILL a violation of the DCMA, and one that the author should sue for.
I don't think there will be a wall soon, even if we hit it eventually.
While processors have been increasing in heat recently, over time, cooling has become better. Early computers were the size of whole, air conditioned rooms!
I know that we're talking 20-30 years ago, but the idea is the same; for the most part, technology has become smaller and previous solutions are still suitable. One example is the cell phone. And computers have been getting more powerful and smaller as well; laptops as thin as your finger (with the battery!) and mobile processors that run cool and fast.
Of course, the opposite is true; heat has increased in other fields. Fanless graphics cards are becoming a rarer sight.
The idea of using iris scanning is undoubtably cool, but is it ready for real life application?
The system, according to the article, is four adults for each kid. Is that a great idea? Parents and one set of grandparents. What happens when the four are out and someone else needs to pick up the kid, like an aunt or uncle?
In other ways, its a great idea; You're not going anywhere without your eyes. But the current technical limitations are bad. Also, the cost is also an issue.
Of course, protection is needed. What's wrong with a swipe card? Or RFID keychains? A little more expensive to implement, but then you run the risk of losing one and having access.
I think that humans and technology combined are the solution. Facial recognition with a name lookup. Look up the kid and see pictures of the authorized guardians. You have to pay someone to do it, but it is by far the best: One person monitors and lets people in. The only problem with that is that it is subject to human error.
The real problem is that every solution has a problem; cost, errors, or otherwise. I'm sure this stuff will be sorted out in a few years.
The iPod is the thing that (most) people think when they think of an MP3 player...and the iTunes/iPod combo makes Apple great money. /> />
<br
<br
But when the iPod eventually flops (when Apple makes a mistake), ITMS will probably go with it.
http://www.tomshardware.com.nyud.net:8090/2006/01/ 09/strip_out_the_fans/
I don't know, it just bugs me how poorly laid out these web sites are.
For example, I am not going to buy something just because it's in the middle of the article. For free sites, ads are fine with me; but when they're simply intrusive, I draw the line.
Let's take some other tech sites for example. Some PCMagazine.com articles look interesting, but I avoid them completely because they put ads in the middle.
Free registration is also boneheaded- if you're going to put ads, why do it WITHOUT registering? You let less people see them!
The other problem-due to the (vast) difference between print design and web design, is how hard it is to find interesting content. How about-I don't know, experiment a bit. Try laying it out as an ACTUAL newspaper, where each link is a headline. Put a short description. Then, people might find interesting news...
One last thing is the complete irrelevance of ads on many major news sites-While I am often interested by ads on specific sites (slashdot even), I hate when I'm reading an article on healthcare and an ad to "Hit Osama for a free PSP!" pops up. It's annoying and makes sure I won't click on the ad.
At the present moment, the current estimated cost per wafer is $9000-$10,000, with about 65 good chips per wafer. So, the current estimated cost per chip is $150 and $175 on the board. Now, don't get me wrong, Sony is pretty wealthy. But how can they afford that? $175 and no drive, GPU or anything. Sony will obviously go into the red in order to be competitively priced. Sony: A) Wants to sell it in the red to be competitively priced. While standalone Blu-Ray players will be an estimated $1,000 , you can get a killer game console AND blu-ray player for less! B) Lock consumers into the system with some good launch games and better specs. C) Once there is enough of a base, Blu-ray will be the obvious choice for movie producers and consumers as a storage format. I'm in doubt of this. Between the rootkit and Betamax, the memory stick, etc., the players/burners will be overpriced and Sony will keep it to themselves. The format will probably be designed with Sony and "movie producer rights" in mind vs. the consumer. I am in doubt that the console alone will be able to make Blu-Ray a success.
It was formatted but when the comment submitted it clumped it together.
Quote Dvorak, circa 1995: "The noisiest buzz in the industry lately has been over the emerging use of cable TV systems to provide fast network data transmissions using a device called a cable modem. But the likelihood of this technology succeeding is zilch. It's one of those interesting-sounding ideas that will attract what venture capitalists call dumb money. Unfortunately, it's a big distraction in a market that should be concentrating on ISDN and broadband. HP, U.S. Robotics, ZDS, and others have been toying with the idea for a few years, and Motorola Multimedia Group's recently announced CyberSurfer 10-Mbps cable modem has completely muddied the waters. There's also LANCity's announced $595 model. Until recently, these things cost a ridiculous $5,000. Cable modems are, of course, targeted at Net surfers. According to the press announcement, the CyberSurfer will be the fastest, receiving data at 10 Mbps and sending it at 768 Kbps. Exactly how the modem will work on the largely one-way cable systems in the U.S. is a mystery. And since there's no governing standards organization for cable modems, these devices won't be able to talk to modems made by anyone else. But hey, they sure are fast. Even so, users with access to a T1 phone connection will soon discover that the fastest provider can send data at only around 56 Kbps--slower than a single B-channel over ISDN. This isn't likely to change as providers try to serve as many users as possible, rather than pump 128 Kbps or more to a few people. So the ideal connection for Net surfing is a single B-channel on an ISDN line. So even if you had a 10-Mbps cable connection, it would be useless except for point-to-point transfer at Motorola's upstream speed of 768 Kbps. And that assumes upstream capability, which the cable companies will have available in only a few test areas. If users don't flock to this technology in those areas, the cable companies will drop the idea like a hot potato. We have to remember that, collectively, the cable TV folks are as dumb as fireplugs. There is no incentive to be otherwise. They have monopolies and do little more than string wire and milk the cash cow. Why would they want to get mixed up in something that requires real work? If you doubt this, visit your local cable company and ask "When will you have cable modem capability?" Just see what they say. My guess: "Huh? What's a modem?" Then there is the issue of security. The cable TV system is a broadcast medium, not a secure network. All transmissions over cable are highly susceptible to hacking. Much more so than anything else except cellular phones. HP is one company that harps on the security issues regarding cable modems. So why spin our wheels over a dead-end technology when ISDN is here now? Is speed really the issue? There may be another element at play. When you consider digital phone networks and the equipment that is needed to hook up ISDN, you see an interesting phenomenon. The modem companies aren't in the game. Networking companies run the show: Ascend, Cisco, and Combinet. Modem companies like Hayes--and recently Zyxel--miss the mark with ISDN. Others have ignored it completely. In a digital world, you won't need to MOdulate/ DEModulate (the root meaning of modem). Many users just can't make the transition to a future where the modem is moot. For these sentimentalists, the cable modem is the last gasp. But there are no cable modem standards whatsoever, and very little cable modem promotion within the brain-dead cable TV industry. While this fiasco unfolds, we hear cheering from people who should know better and examine the simple illogic of the whole thing. Hey, but it sure is fast." Why do we spin our wheels over a dead-end technology when ISDN is here now? Is speed really the issue?
The Xbox 360 is undoubtably a monster of a machine, and one that Microsoft naturally takes much pride in. But Microsoft is going to be in the red for a while, and they will need to make the money back. Once the gaming base gets them up and out, my guess is that major innovation will start to keep buyers away from the PS3 and Gamecube (which shouldn't be too hard-the estimated cost per cell chip is stellar (theinquirer.net) and Nintendo has an undeserved reputation as merely a "kiddy" system.) If they can do that, the 360 will profit. Microsoft will pretty much be forced to innovate, and consumers should win this battle.
Does Amazon even own the comments? Like Slashdot, they probably have a disclaimer. Even then, isn't it considered free speech?
AJAX is a good idea for larger services, like Gmail, that many people use and it is completely seamless. However, AJAX is much harder to code, and it's not necessary for a smaller company, which doesn't need the marginal gains vs. the coding. Still, for a large company like Google, it takes less time to load (which makes Gmail seem better) and also saves bandwidth.
Recalling the CD's is merely a slap on the wrist. It doesn't cost Sony as nearly as much money as a lawsuit, costs Amazon money, and it does not repair the damage to numerous artists names by this rootkit.
If Sony actually would own up to their stupid mistake, the artists wouldn't be impacted so much. Look at Van Dant's CD on Amazon. 1.5 stars, 300 reviews, most mentioning the rootkit. Do you think that he'll fare so well in the future.
I have lost faith in Sony. Propietary formats and other things were a little odd, but I accepted them. But rootkits, a patent for games that only play on the console they were originally put in...seems like a ridiculous infringement on user rights.
Rather than losing money to pirates, people will turn to better solutions and Sony will be the loser.
If there is an ad-supported version of Windows, the ads would be intergrated on the level of the operating system (like a rootkit). Doesn't this sound like a bad idea? What will happen when a less-than-well-intending firm finds out how to use the ad system and hijack it? It would be almost, if not impossible, to remove.