That's what this article is, kdawson. As others have noticed, words like "Microsoft" and "Windows" are also disallowed. And really, even if it were some plot to keep people from advocating linux on Live, so fucking what? How could this be more of a non-story?
Sure, we can argue five different things, no two of which can be self-consistent, but as long as we can get someone to give us the go ahead on one of those, then we'll act like that was the truth and our position the whole time.
It's a logically valid method of argument. Consider if you were trying to make a mathematical proof for some theorem, but it was hard to predict ahead of time whether a given proof is valid. You construct several proofs which have a decent chance of being valid, even if they're inconsistent with each other, and if any of them are correct, the statement is true.
Consider another case: you are accused of trespassing on someone else's land, except the location you are accused of trespassing on is your propert and you weren't there anyway. You could say "1) it's not your land so I wasn't [or wouldn't be] trespassing and 2) I wasn't even there in the first place, so I wasn't trespassing" and there's nothing sketchy or wrong about it.
That, and (as MSFT later proved head-on w/ their TCP/IP implementations), the classic BSD license really doesn't protect against theft and proprietary lock-down of improvements.
You obviously don't grok the BSD license then, because it's not supposed to "protect" against that. What Microsoft did by including the BSD TCP/IP stack in Windows is the intention of those who license under BSD.
Re:tivoisation
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Jesus Christ, I've mentioned it twice already: networked multiplayer games. Because I can't run a modified executable on my machine, I can't cheat, and neither can anyone else.
Re:tivoisation
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The spirit of the GPL is that of freedom for the user. Tivoisation, the restriction of actually modifying the code on the hardware, was an unforeseen issue when GPLv2 (which guarantees that right) was written and thusly had to be corrected in GPLv3.
And yet the FSF went to great lengths to permit it in some cases (the business use exception), recognizing that Tivoisation isn't a restriction on fundamental freedom, and in fact in many cases is beneficial to the user. That's why they have the convoluted definition of "consumer device" so that they can distinguish between consumer and business products - because lots of businesses have an interest in devices that will only run signed code. And I gave an example of where the consumer wants the same thing - games, where the user wants to know that everyone is running the same version in multiplayer. In general, it's often good for networked devices (other than general-purpose computers) to only run signed code, because it makes it significantly easier to guarantee network stability. So even if we accept that there are cases where Tivoisation is bad, and that the FSF ought to try to prevent them, we're left with the fact that it can only do so with a broad brush, eliminating a lot of good uses along with a lot of bad ones. They're taking away as much freedom for the user (freedom to use GPLv3 on their trusted platform while maintaining that trust) as they're giving.
I don't understand the furor over Tivoisation, and think it's a really bad move on the FSF's part to ban it. In all the other articles I've seen tons of comments along the lines of "well if Tivo doesn't want to give back, then they can't use my code!" The thing is, Tivo does give back - they contribute any source code they add. And there's nothing preventing you from using that code on another system (with similar hardware, of course). I don't see the benefit in forcing them to open up their hardware just because they want to use GPLv3 software on it. For most devices like this, it's important to the proper functioning of the network for the servers to be able to trust the clients, and so there have to be limitations to the software you can run on that device. GPLv3 won't convince Tivo (or others) to open their hardware, it will just force all of them to stick with GPLv2 code. That hurts adoption of Free Software.
The irritating part is that the FSF has the business products exception, where Tivoisation is okay for hardware sold for business use. Stallman et. al. recognize that in some cases it's ultimately beneficial to the user to be unable to run modified software (e.g. a business that has to have accountability, or a console gamer who wants to know that no one is running a hacked game in multiplayer), but they think they can somehow figure out where that line is for everyone.
SLI might have been the problem. I've noticed several games (SimCity 4 I'm looking at you!) that run like absolute shit under SLI but are smooth as can be when I turn it off. YMMV.
As I understand it, DX10 relies on features of the new display driver model in Vista for its performance enhancements, so it's a real technological barrier. Not insurmountable (after all, they're both Turing-complete) but also not just an OS check.
Er, my mistake. I meant that it shouldn't be possible to hack MS's DX10 to run on XP, but it's probably possible to write a port from the ground up. OTOH, if there are no XP DX10 drivers, there won't be much point.
Then in what way is that not a special interest? Is not 1% the very definition of special interest?
Because the other 99% will use the applications developed by that 1%, and those applications will add a lot of value to the iPhone for everyone else. Duh?
Windows, on the other hand, requires a different 32- or 64-bit version for each of its six flavors. So once you decide you want, say, Windows Professional Enterprise, you need to make sure it comes with 64-bit support. Otherwise, you'll be stuck booting your chip in 32-bit mode. Apps must be written and released for 32- or 64-bit and can't run otherwise. This limits users of older systems with Pentium III processors, for example, from running a 64-bit version of a popular game.
Actually, the fact that a Pentium III is ancient and slow prevents it from running the either version of a popular game.
and the back button on my mouse doesn't work. That's a deal-killer, almost as much as the lack of Adblock (is there a version for Safari?) I'd love to switch, the interface is nicer and SMALLER than Firefox, but I need my back button.
Technically I don't think the first-sale doctrine applies. It only applies to the specific legally-made copy. Unless you actually give your hard drive to your friend, you are creating a second copy by transferring it to him, and the first-sale doctrine wouldn't apply (it's not a copy given to you by the rights-holder, but created by you).
If it's encrypted with a one-time pad, you have to store that on the phone. And since the one-time pad is the same size as the song, you might as well store the pad on the phone.
The current use of "trusted" actually makes a certain amount of sense. Trusted computing, for instance, derives from the idea of a trusted system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_system):
"In the security engineering subspecialty of computer science, a trusted system is a system that is relied upon to a specified extent to enforce a specified security policy. As such, a trusted system is one which failure may break a specified security policy."
The idea is that by including some sort of trusted hardware (with its own encryption key) in a computer or system, the server can trust that the client will behave in a certain way. In practice this is often used to enforce DRM, but is also useful in other situations where you want to restrict the abilities of the user (e.g. workstations in a corporation). The technology is actually a fairly interesting application of cryptography and information theory.
Slashdot Mirror
No, emusic has DRM-free music first. Apple didn't invent everything under the sun, though some people seem to think so.
What the FUCK. Paragraphs, please.
That's what this article is, kdawson. As others have noticed, words like "Microsoft" and "Windows" are also disallowed. And really, even if it were some plot to keep people from advocating linux on Live, so fucking what? How could this be more of a non-story?
It's a logically valid method of argument. Consider if you were trying to make a mathematical proof for some theorem, but it was hard to predict ahead of time whether a given proof is valid. You construct several proofs which have a decent chance of being valid, even if they're inconsistent with each other, and if any of them are correct, the statement is true.
Consider another case: you are accused of trespassing on someone else's land, except the location you are accused of trespassing on is your propert and you weren't there anyway. You could say "1) it's not your land so I wasn't [or wouldn't be] trespassing and 2) I wasn't even there in the first place, so I wasn't trespassing" and there's nothing sketchy or wrong about it.
You obviously don't grok the BSD license then, because it's not supposed to "protect" against that. What Microsoft did by including the BSD TCP/IP stack in Windows is the intention of those who license under BSD.
Jesus Christ, I've mentioned it twice already: networked multiplayer games. Because I can't run a modified executable on my machine, I can't cheat, and neither can anyone else.
And yet the FSF went to great lengths to permit it in some cases (the business use exception), recognizing that Tivoisation isn't a restriction on fundamental freedom, and in fact in many cases is beneficial to the user. That's why they have the convoluted definition of "consumer device" so that they can distinguish between consumer and business products - because lots of businesses have an interest in devices that will only run signed code. And I gave an example of where the consumer wants the same thing - games, where the user wants to know that everyone is running the same version in multiplayer. In general, it's often good for networked devices (other than general-purpose computers) to only run signed code, because it makes it significantly easier to guarantee network stability. So even if we accept that there are cases where Tivoisation is bad, and that the FSF ought to try to prevent them, we're left with the fact that it can only do so with a broad brush, eliminating a lot of good uses along with a lot of bad ones. They're taking away as much freedom for the user (freedom to use GPLv3 on their trusted platform while maintaining that trust) as they're giving.
Then I wouldn't be able to run the FSF's software on any of it, by their design!
But, let's be realistic. It would be absolutely impossible to Tivoise all general-purpose computers. And it's not like you couldn't build your own.
The irritating part is that the FSF has the business products exception, where Tivoisation is okay for hardware sold for business use. Stallman et. al. recognize that in some cases it's ultimately beneficial to the user to be unable to run modified software (e.g. a business that has to have accountability, or a console gamer who wants to know that no one is running a hacked game in multiplayer), but they think they can somehow figure out where that line is for everyone.
it's on the DS. Oh man, that would be addictive - portable civ. It'd be a great deal for Firaxis and Nintendo.
is obvious from the comments: so we [url=http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/kenya/]forg et norway[/url]
SLI might have been the problem. I've noticed several games (SimCity 4 I'm looking at you!) that run like absolute shit under SLI but are smooth as can be when I turn it off. YMMV.
Translating DX10 calls into OpenGL calls is going to come with a performance hit.
As I understand it, DX10 relies on features of the new display driver model in Vista for its performance enhancements, so it's a real technological barrier. Not insurmountable (after all, they're both Turing-complete) but also not just an OS check.
Er, my mistake. I meant that it shouldn't be possible to hack MS's DX10 to run on XP, but it's probably possible to write a port from the ground up. OTOH, if there are no XP DX10 drivers, there won't be much point.
(And as I understand it, you can't just port DX10 to XP - its functionality requires the new display driver model in Vista.)
Because the other 99% will use the applications developed by that 1%, and those applications will add a lot of value to the iPhone for everyone else. Duh?
When Safari is missing basic, necessary features like going back on backspace, it's a problem for normal users too.
Actually, the fact that a Pentium III is ancient and slow prevents it from running the either version of a popular game.
and the back button on my mouse doesn't work. That's a deal-killer, almost as much as the lack of Adblock (is there a version for Safari?) I'd love to switch, the interface is nicer and SMALLER than Firefox, but I need my back button.
If something is possible it will be done by someone.
Technically I don't think the first-sale doctrine applies. It only applies to the specific legally-made copy. Unless you actually give your hard drive to your friend, you are creating a second copy by transferring it to him, and the first-sale doctrine wouldn't apply (it's not a copy given to you by the rights-holder, but created by you).
If it's encrypted with a one-time pad, you have to store that on the phone. And since the one-time pad is the same size as the song, you might as well store the pad on the phone.
"In the security engineering subspecialty of computer science, a trusted system is a system that is relied upon to a specified extent to enforce a specified security policy. As such, a trusted system is one which failure may break a specified security policy."
The idea is that by including some sort of trusted hardware (with its own encryption key) in a computer or system, the server can trust that the client will behave in a certain way. In practice this is often used to enforce DRM, but is also useful in other situations where you want to restrict the abilities of the user (e.g. workstations in a corporation). The technology is actually a fairly interesting application of cryptography and information theory.
I suspect the parent is lying, since it didn't happen to me. I just checked and Firefox is still the default.