'once you have worked at one, it's a lot easier to get into another'
I'm sure that has nothing to do with the plethora (sp?) of trade secrets you may, possibly, have learned while interning for the competition?
Perhaps, some jewel of knowledge a previous intern either didn't have or wouldn't give up?
Nah, it's not that. These companies are far, far too honest for that.
I think that's the point. It's out now, it's too late to take it back.
Well, it's not too late, they could recall it. That would be extremely damaging to Windows as a franchise.
Releasing Vienna so soon after Vista will also be damaging. However, it will; only damage Vista, rather than Windows as a whole. Not releasing it ASAP and encouraging people to use Vista would likely do more damage than this, though less damage than recalling Vista.
That's why they're playing their cards this way. Let people use Vista and watch Windows spiral down. Recall Vista and let Windows spiral down. They need a way to stop Vista without people knowing they're stopping Vista; this is it.
Actually, they can have their client query yours for a list of chunks you have available.
Then, they would know how much you've downloaded.
They don't need to know how much you've uploaded. They should, however, need to know that you are uploading; they could request a chunk from the aforementioned list to determine this.
Don't return a list and they don't know whether you're downloading or not. No list means no means of requesting a chunk to test for uploading.
Return a list but refuse to upload the requested chunk and they don't know whether you're uploading or not. No upload to them means plausable deniability.
The non-downloading, non-uploading client mentioned in TFA would not have a list to return, nor a chunk to upload on request. Very easy for them to verify that he is downloading/uploading. Very difficult for either party to prove that he is not. Therefore, the burden of proof should fall squarely on the shoulders of the plaintiff.
Eventually, I'll get around to writing a paper about this, but for now, I'm just karma whoring. Oh, who am I kidding, when I write the paper, I'll just be karma whoring as well. Gotta do what ya gotta do, no?
Yes, the particular computer you use them with is newer than they are. They are accessories for a computer, computers have been around far longer than those accessories. Nice try.
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, with the phrase "accessory service", that I was refering to iTMS, the SERVICE, not iTunes, the SOFTWARE.
Also, note that I never said you had to use iTMS or iTunes (or a Mac) with your iPod, I only pointed out the (irrefutable) fact that the iPod is the only player that can directly play tracks purchased on iTMS.
Or was my karma still "Bad" when you replied to my post, causing you to feel the need to troll? Let's all hope that foniksonik never gets his hands on a mod point.
***Note how I refrained from calling him an Apple fanboi, since I have no evidence of this, other than the link he gave to the "history lesson" I didn't need to take the time to read, which would be speculative, at best. I did, however, especially like how he backed up my position by stating the iTMS came after the iPod, then stated his position that the accessory came out before the product.***
Generally, when a product or service that works with another product or service comes out after that product or service with which it works, the later-released product or service it the accessory. I can not think of a single time when an accessory came out 2 years before the product it works with.
That's all fine and well, unless you're powering them via a green power source. Consider that your solar cells or wind turbines don't put out any mercury (or any pollution at all, after manufacture, until you dispose of them), you're actually doing more damage to the environment with these bulbs than with incandescents.
Playing Beta tapes in a VHS deck...
on
Norway Outlaws iTunes
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
iTunes came after the iPod, as an accessory service to the iPod and nothing more. Why should an iPod accessory have to work with other players? (HINT: It does, you can burn the tracks to a CD and re-rip them in a format usable on any player, though with some loss in quality.)
Allow me to rephrase that: HD-DVD content with the HDCP bit set came after HDCP-enabled HDTV sets, as an accessory to HDCP-enabled HDTV sets and nothing more. Why should an accessory for HDCP-enabled HDTV sets have to work with other sets? (HINT: It does, you can watch it on your existing set, though with some loss in quality.)
And, again: McDonalds hamburgers came after the trash can, as an accessory to the trash can. Why should an acccessory for a trash can have to work with anything else? (HINT: It does, you can eat it and still live your life, though with some loss in quality.)
Okay, so I threw that last one in for a luagh. I could have (and perhaps should have?) given a longer list of, perhaps less obvious, examples, but I feel it's better to let you post them in reply to this; it may help my karma. Or not.
Yes, there is one scenario under which you can LEGALLY watch premium content at full quality: If you have end-to-end HDCP encryption, meaning a monitor that support HDCP (extremely rare), a video card that supports HDCP (rare), an OS that supports HDCP (Vista), and playback software that supports HDCP.
If you are missing any elements of the above, Vista will not LEGALLY playback HD video at full res. Furthermore, XP will never have the ability to LEGALLY play HD-DVD and Blu-ray at full res.
So, in short, all you need to do is wait till the consumer Vista release, and purchase a Vista Ultimate system with a brand new monitor to replace the 23" LCD flat panel you bought last year. Don't forget the DVI-HDCP compliant cables, and the 5.1 digital speakers with HDCP support.
OR, YOU CAN WAIT 2 WEEKS FOR THE CRACK.
Let's just say the chip is encased in plastic and the antenna is wrapped around it. Just a guess, but if the antenna contacts the coin, doesn't the coin become an antenna?
Why not just use the firmware included with the Windows drivers? Typically, the firmware will be licensed to that hardware, not to your OS, so there's nothing stopping us from writing a driver that asks you to insert the driver disc so that it can extract the firmware image for its own use (as licensed, on the intended hardware).
No reverse engineering (beyond locating the firmware in the windows executable, but most likely, it's a.bin or other seperate file on the disc) would be required. Completely legal.
Further, we, the Linux community, could benefit more from this by being entirely able to skip the first (buggy) firmware release for any given hardware. Think -- the firmware is driver-loaded -- it would stand to reason (sorry, anti-MS trolls and cinspiracy theorists, it has to be pointed out) that the reason for doing this is ease of firmware upgrade. What's easier than making updated firmware available online? Wait until the first round of bugs are removed from the "release" firmware and download it from the manufacturer's website.
Sure, it's different than what linux driver devs are used to. Who's to say that's not a good thing, though?
Region coding on DVDs DOES suck, you're right. That's not quite an apt analogy, however. Is there a legal alternative without the coding? No. Is there a legal alternative to Vista? There are several.
or they might simply claim that it is an unreasonable burden to operate such a server without economic benefit to them.
It's a very reasonable burden to operate such a server to gain the economic benefit of being allowed to legally DRM protect a piece of mass-distributed-for-profit media. Of course, this assumes that there is, indeed, an economic benefit to limiting the rights of your customers to exercise their fair-use rights. So, where is this law restricting the use of DRM in mass-distributed and for-profit media?
Then again, some customers like to play with their video and audio; cut clips from copyrighted works to which they have access and put together a little something for their own experimentation and enjoyment, or even to further their knowledge and abilities regarding the tools they are using before attempting to produce something of their own. If this isn't fair-use, it should be. Before anyone goes off about how this hypothetical customer shouldn't be allowed to distribute this derivative work, note that I never said they should; "for their own experimentation and enjoyment" was my exact wording; and, again, if doing so is not legal AND PROTECTED, it should be.
I hereby propose a *GASP* new branch of government; or, perhaps an extension to the duties of the LoC. The task being assigned is a simple one; maintain a server against which mass-distributed and for-profit DRM'd media will be validated. Use of the government-backed validation server should be denied for any DRM'd media if the work in question is not submitted to the LoC, in an accessible and unencumbered format. The applicable laws should also limit the use of DRM on such media to systems which use, and use correctly, the government-backed validation server. If the copyright on a particular piece of media has expired, this server should return a result not only allowing the media to be played, but decoded into an unprotected format.
Of course, in an ideal world, one would be allowed to do whatever they wish with copyrighted works, so long as they do not distribute them as their own. This could also be accomplished with DRM, perhaps using the same validation server. In fact, this could be accomplished quite easily, while maintaining the DRM in effect on the original works in the derivative work. If the DRM from each protected work used in a derivative work were to be applied to that derivative work (this could be done by the editing software; if they're eventually going to mandate that it include DRM anyway, this would be the way to do it; rather than it denying you the ability to create or distribute your derivative work, deny the ability of others who aren't licensed to play the media from which it was created the ability to play it). In this way, as each copyright expires, that layer of DRM would be removed from the derivative work, while still allowing the derivative work to maintain its own DRM protection, if desired, which would be removed, again, at the expiration of its own copyright (which would, of course, overlap the period during which the works from which it was derived were in the public domain). Of course, this would require an exception for derivative works; the LoC would have to accept derivative works in a non-unencumbered format, so long as it met the legal requirements for mass-distributed and for-profit DRM'd media.
In fact, if implemented and enforced in this way, DRM could actually bring the consumer more rights while protecting the rights of copyright holders. By allowing derivative works of copyright materials to be distributed to and played by others who have license to play the works from which it was derived, while, effectively, denying that right to those who do not have such license. That's a step or three beyond what we can legally do right now, regardless of what's physically possible; and it protects the rights of everyone involved.
I apologize for my longwindedness and if any part of this post is ambiguous. Before you flame or mod me down, request clarification AND allow me to clarify; if, after that clarification, you still feel the need to flame me or mod me down, go right on ahead. Thank you.
The same ones who buy and play the closed-source windows-compatible version on Linux with winE and Cedega (with all the defects and trouble) would, I reckon. Provided, of course, that these defects and this trouble weren't part of the deal (read: the Linux version wasn't based on the Windows version with winE or Cedega).
Troll! err... Wait. No, it's true. I've never seen a pirated copy of XP get snubbed by WGA but I've sure seen what happens when it goes wrong in a corporate environment, where I know all they keys are avlid becasue the stickers are still on the machines (though the keys have been maticulously cut out of them).
Actually, that's why the experimental discussion system is EXPERIMENTAL. If you don't like it, don't use it. I don't use it because, well, that's my choice.
Do you really read the subject line of the posts before you read them?
Do you really read the posts? I only read his post to see what the rest of the sentence was. Otherwise, the subject lines are enough for me, like the summaries.
Or are you implying that you read the articles as well?
There must have been something wrong with your father's XP install or the camera must have required a driver.
Friend, this can happen on a Mac as well. Apple can't possibly know and account for every piece of hardware that will come out after the release of their OS. Neither can Microsoft.
While it is true that most digital cameras simply work as removable drives anymore, this isn't the case with all cameras. If it doesn't work as a removable drive in XP, neither will it in OSX. As for that driver, was one included for OSX?
You really did leave out some details and I really would like to see them.
And to clear that gray area up, the law states (and I'll reply to this with a reference when I find it) that, if the original media is sold, all copies must also be transferred or destroyed. They're selling the iPod and the DVDs, it's coincidental that there is a copy of the DVD on the iPod.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, some jewel of knowledge a previous intern either didn't have or wouldn't give up?
Nah, it's not that. These companies are far, far too honest for that.
Then, you would be shit out, processed and sold nationwide as a fertilizer, under the name Milorganite.
No, really, go to Home Depot. Hell, google it. I'm not kidding.
Well, it's not too late, they could recall it. That would be extremely damaging to Windows as a franchise.
Releasing Vienna so soon after Vista will also be damaging. However, it will; only damage Vista, rather than Windows as a whole. Not releasing it ASAP and encouraging people to use Vista would likely do more damage than this, though less damage than recalling Vista.
That's why they're playing their cards this way. Let people use Vista and watch Windows spiral down. Recall Vista and let Windows spiral down. They need a way to stop Vista without people knowing they're stopping Vista; this is it.
I thought FFS stood for 'Fuck! File System', used as an alternate name for NTFS when the partition corrupts itself and you lose all your data.
Funny that was; had I any mod points, well... it's already +5 so I wouldn't waste them.
I was thinking more along the lines of:
Vienna... Sausage?
Gee, Bill, that's a huge OS. Compensating for something?
If using the service was against university policy, they very well could have Tor him a new one.
Actually, they can have their client query yours for a list of chunks you have available.
Then, they would know how much you've downloaded.
They don't need to know how much you've uploaded. They should, however, need to know that you are uploading; they could request a chunk from the aforementioned list to determine this.
Don't return a list and they don't know whether you're downloading or not. No list means no means of requesting a chunk to test for uploading.
Return a list but refuse to upload the requested chunk and they don't know whether you're uploading or not. No upload to them means plausable deniability.
The non-downloading, non-uploading client mentioned in TFA would not have a list to return, nor a chunk to upload on request. Very easy for them to verify that he is downloading/uploading. Very difficult for either party to prove that he is not. Therefore, the burden of proof should fall squarely on the shoulders of the plaintiff.
Eventually, I'll get around to writing a paper about this, but for now, I'm just karma whoring. Oh, who am I kidding, when I write the paper, I'll just be karma whoring as well. Gotta do what ya gotta do, no?
Would the drive-by moderator who modded parent a troll please explain their logic?
Yes, the particular computer you use them with is newer than they are. They are accessories for a computer, computers have been around far longer than those accessories. Nice try.
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, with the phrase "accessory service", that I was refering to iTMS, the SERVICE, not iTunes, the SOFTWARE.
Also, note that I never said you had to use iTMS or iTunes (or a Mac) with your iPod, I only pointed out the (irrefutable) fact that the iPod is the only player that can directly play tracks purchased on iTMS.
Or was my karma still "Bad" when you replied to my post, causing you to feel the need to troll? Let's all hope that foniksonik never gets his hands on a mod point.
***Note how I refrained from calling him an Apple fanboi, since I have no evidence of this, other than the link he gave to the "history lesson" I didn't need to take the time to read, which would be speculative, at best. I did, however, especially like how he backed up my position by stating the iTMS came after the iPod, then stated his position that the accessory came out before the product.***
Generally, when a product or service that works with another product or service comes out after that product or service with which it works, the later-released product or service it the accessory. I can not think of a single time when an accessory came out 2 years before the product it works with.
That's all fine and well, unless you're powering them via a green power source. Consider that your solar cells or wind turbines don't put out any mercury (or any pollution at all, after manufacture, until you dispose of them), you're actually doing more damage to the environment with these bulbs than with incandescents.
iTunes came after the iPod, as an accessory service to the iPod and nothing more. Why should an iPod accessory have to work with other players? (HINT: It does, you can burn the tracks to a CD and re-rip them in a format usable on any player, though with some loss in quality.)
Allow me to rephrase that: HD-DVD content with the HDCP bit set came after HDCP-enabled HDTV sets, as an accessory to HDCP-enabled HDTV sets and nothing more. Why should an accessory for HDCP-enabled HDTV sets have to work with other sets? (HINT: It does, you can watch it on your existing set, though with some loss in quality.)
And, again: McDonalds hamburgers came after the trash can, as an accessory to the trash can. Why should an acccessory for a trash can have to work with anything else? (HINT: It does, you can eat it and still live your life, though with some loss in quality.)
Okay, so I threw that last one in for a luagh. I could have (and perhaps should have?) given a longer list of, perhaps less obvious, examples, but I feel it's better to let you post them in reply to this; it may help my karma. Or not.
Yes, there is one scenario under which you can LEGALLY watch premium content at full quality: If you have end-to-end HDCP encryption, meaning a monitor that support HDCP (extremely rare), a video card that supports HDCP (rare), an OS that supports HDCP (Vista), and playback software that supports HDCP. If you are missing any elements of the above, Vista will not LEGALLY playback HD video at full res. Furthermore, XP will never have the ability to LEGALLY play HD-DVD and Blu-ray at full res. So, in short, all you need to do is wait till the consumer Vista release, and purchase a Vista Ultimate system with a brand new monitor to replace the 23" LCD flat panel you bought last year. Don't forget the DVI-HDCP compliant cables, and the 5.1 digital speakers with HDCP support. OR, YOU CAN WAIT 2 WEEKS FOR THE CRACK.
More precisely, why the fuck is an MRI running windows?
Yes, I know it's offtpoic - no need to waste mod points to tell me so.
Anyway, the ytmnd page (since taken down) was Developers developers developers developers developers developers mushroom mushroom.
Let's just say the chip is encased in plastic and the antenna is wrapped around it. Just a guess, but if the antenna contacts the coin, doesn't the coin become an antenna?
Why not just use the firmware included with the Windows drivers? Typically, the firmware will be licensed to that hardware, not to your OS, so there's nothing stopping us from writing a driver that asks you to insert the driver disc so that it can extract the firmware image for its own use (as licensed, on the intended hardware).
.bin or other seperate file on the disc) would be required. Completely legal.
No reverse engineering (beyond locating the firmware in the windows executable, but most likely, it's a
Further, we, the Linux community, could benefit more from this by being entirely able to skip the first (buggy) firmware release for any given hardware. Think -- the firmware is driver-loaded -- it would stand to reason (sorry, anti-MS trolls and cinspiracy theorists, it has to be pointed out) that the reason for doing this is ease of firmware upgrade. What's easier than making updated firmware available online? Wait until the first round of bugs are removed from the "release" firmware and download it from the manufacturer's website.
Sure, it's different than what linux driver devs are used to. Who's to say that's not a good thing, though?
Region coding on DVDs DOES suck, you're right. That's not quite an apt analogy, however. Is there a legal alternative without the coding? No. Is there a legal alternative to Vista? There are several.
It's a very reasonable burden to operate such a server to gain the economic benefit of being allowed to legally DRM protect a piece of mass-distributed-for-profit media. Of course, this assumes that there is, indeed, an economic benefit to limiting the rights of your customers to exercise their fair-use rights. So, where is this law restricting the use of DRM in mass-distributed and for-profit media?
Then again, some customers like to play with their video and audio; cut clips from copyrighted works to which they have access and put together a little something for their own experimentation and enjoyment, or even to further their knowledge and abilities regarding the tools they are using before attempting to produce something of their own. If this isn't fair-use, it should be. Before anyone goes off about how this hypothetical customer shouldn't be allowed to distribute this derivative work, note that I never said they should; "for their own experimentation and enjoyment" was my exact wording; and, again, if doing so is not legal AND PROTECTED, it should be.
I hereby propose a *GASP* new branch of government; or, perhaps an extension to the duties of the LoC. The task being assigned is a simple one; maintain a server against which mass-distributed and for-profit DRM'd media will be validated. Use of the government-backed validation server should be denied for any DRM'd media if the work in question is not submitted to the LoC, in an accessible and unencumbered format. The applicable laws should also limit the use of DRM on such media to systems which use, and use correctly, the government-backed validation server. If the copyright on a particular piece of media has expired, this server should return a result not only allowing the media to be played, but decoded into an unprotected format.
Of course, in an ideal world, one would be allowed to do whatever they wish with copyrighted works, so long as they do not distribute them as their own. This could also be accomplished with DRM, perhaps using the same validation server. In fact, this could be accomplished quite easily, while maintaining the DRM in effect on the original works in the derivative work. If the DRM from each protected work used in a derivative work were to be applied to that derivative work (this could be done by the editing software; if they're eventually going to mandate that it include DRM anyway, this would be the way to do it; rather than it denying you the ability to create or distribute your derivative work, deny the ability of others who aren't licensed to play the media from which it was created the ability to play it). In this way, as each copyright expires, that layer of DRM would be removed from the derivative work, while still allowing the derivative work to maintain its own DRM protection, if desired, which would be removed, again, at the expiration of its own copyright (which would, of course, overlap the period during which the works from which it was derived were in the public domain). Of course, this would require an exception for derivative works; the LoC would have to accept derivative works in a non-unencumbered format, so long as it met the legal requirements for mass-distributed and for-profit DRM'd media.
In fact, if implemented and enforced in this way, DRM could actually bring the consumer more rights while protecting the rights of copyright holders. By allowing derivative works of copyright materials to be distributed to and played by others who have license to play the works from which it was derived, while, effectively, denying that right to those who do not have such license. That's a step or three beyond what we can legally do right now, regardless of what's physically possible; and it protects the rights of everyone involved.
I apologize for my longwindedness and if any part of this post is ambiguous. Before you flame or mod me down, request clarification AND allow me to clarify; if, after that clarification, you still feel the need to flame me or mod me down, go right on ahead. Thank you.
The same ones who buy and play the closed-source windows-compatible version on Linux with winE and Cedega (with all the defects and trouble) would, I reckon. Provided, of course, that these defects and this trouble weren't part of the deal (read: the Linux version wasn't based on the Windows version with winE or Cedega).
Troll! err... Wait. No, it's true. I've never seen a pirated copy of XP get snubbed by WGA but I've sure seen what happens when it goes wrong in a corporate environment, where I know all they keys are avlid becasue the stickers are still on the machines (though the keys have been maticulously cut out of them).
Actually, that's why the experimental discussion system is EXPERIMENTAL. If you don't like it, don't use it. I don't use it because, well, that's my choice.
Do you really read the posts? I only read his post to see what the rest of the sentence was. Otherwise, the subject lines are enough for me, like the summaries.
Or are you implying that you read the articles as well?
There must have been something wrong with your father's XP install or the camera must have required a driver.
Friend, this can happen on a Mac as well. Apple can't possibly know and account for every piece of hardware that will come out after the release of their OS. Neither can Microsoft.
While it is true that most digital cameras simply work as removable drives anymore, this isn't the case with all cameras. If it doesn't work as a removable drive in XP, neither will it in OSX. As for that driver, was one included for OSX?
You really did leave out some details and I really would like to see them.
And to clear that gray area up, the law states (and I'll reply to this with a reference when I find it) that, if the original media is sold, all copies must also be transferred or destroyed. They're selling the iPod and the DVDs, it's coincidental that there is a copy of the DVD on the iPod.