Slow to start, maybe. But for rendering, firefox is second in speed only to IE. A big part of this is due to the way KHTML/Webkit waits for a bunch of images to download before it starts rendering.
I don't know what benchmarks use to achieve this, but if I open, say, 3-4 tabs from Slashdot (or any site) on Firefox I'll be waiting 4-5 seconds just for the tabs to appear and Firefox to realize what's going on.
The same operation on IE/Opera is instant, and loading is smooth, without CPU hickups. In Firefox, even the load animation icon can't move smoothly, and hangs every half second, due to CPU load.
A few months ago, I switched to Firefox because I was convinced Safari was slowing down my system. Just this morning, I fired up Safari again - and it is at least three times as fast as Firefox. Don't know what I was thinking...
Same experience on Windows. I have lots of RAM, so let's say I don't care it wants to eat 100-200 MB ram for a few tabs. But I can't help the CPU problem. Not only it slows everything down terribly when loading pages (I frequently launch task manager to see what process eats my CPU and usually Firefox is that process), but it's still slow and unresponsive.
Many Firefox users will think I'm just imagining or having system specific issue, but it's the same experience on any system I tried so far: people, you've forgotten what a fast browser means. Safari/IE/Opera are all few *times* faster than a bare bones firefox install.
I'm still using Firefox though.. FireBug/WebDev Toolbar have no viable alternatives on the other browsers:(/I know about IE webdev toolbar and it's cool, but come on../.
OK, so I upload my 20MB PSD file and run a gaussian blur on it. Who's CPU is doing that? Unless it is ActiveX (Win32 only) or a Java plug-in (most likely not super efficient on raw CPU features), is it going to be hosted on their servers? Javascript won't handle it very well, I'd have to think.
Probably not going to be a huge deal, but those real-time previews of CPU intensive filters are nice on the machine local installation; only hope those make it to the online as well.
I don't remember anyone said it should necessarily run from your *browser*. That said, Flash can do blur and lots of blending modes at native C speeds, as it has those implemented at its core.. If you run it from a tiny (1MB) exe shell, it will also access your local files directly and being able to save back there... Hm, tiny local shell for web apps, does that sound familiar?
Oh but yes! It's Adobe's very-soon-to-be-released Apollo platform! Combining PDF, JS/CSS/HTML and Flash into a runtime, much like a little.NET framework...
And suddenly the offer starts looking dead serious and possible.
(For the record, I liked Transformers when I was a kid, although I was never a hardcore fan; I am looking forward to the new movie. The trailers made me mildly giddy.)
A version of the full script leaked out and people reacted very negatively against it. Full of cliches, we have also "the nerd gets the girl in the end" moment other such non-sense.
The trailer confirmed not much of the script has changes as well. When people reacted negatively to the early Superman script, it was dropped and rewritten (granted to something very bland, but at least not absurd). We don't have this situation here.
I can tell you that there's no such a situation out there: a good movie with a terrible script. Of course, the effect might redeem seeing the movie in the end: It's a bunch of giant battle robots that can turn into cars. They got the kids for sure.
Time to examine how this works, and how to block it from your website. You are allowed to protect unwanted use and access of your copyrighted information, after all!
Don't be a hypocrite. It'll do nothing to your "copyrighted information" put match it against a set of hashes and discard it if it doesn't match. If it matches, an operator would look for signs of illegal activity.
In other words, nothing that the industry isn't doing right now, but now more automated.
Noone likes RIAA suing grandmas and 10 yo girls, or terrible DRM schemes and so on. Doesn't mean you gotta get silly and react "by default" on any technology designed to help protect industry's intellectual rights.
---
I'm only concerned with those crawlers going mad and sucking the bandwidth out of a site which hosts plenty of media files. Or dumbly downloading everything (zips, executables) and you having to foot the bill for the spent traffic in the end.
Google's Mozilla-based bot was found doing such damage on some sites (crawling at incredible speed, bringing the sites down with it), which I suppose were a number of isolated incidents since this bot is still being worked on.
Still, Google wouldn't download large binary files it can't understand, and this is likely to do so, and match everything against the "watermark", otherwise it'd be too simple to fool it. I just hope they implement it properly, if even because they'll have to pay for this bandwidth as well (aggregated).
The series were successful in other time, where what they offered was novel, and wearing spandex as a uniform wasn't ridiculous.
I can't be too wrong that they will come out with a mix of references/cliches from the original series, in attempt to please the fans, and also try to modernize everything, to make it look plausible for a new audience.
The result would likely be something like the upcoming Transformers movie. Pissing off both the fans and the new audience looking for a serious movie in attempt to please both.
It doesn't matter however, since a new Star Trek movie isn't about movie making. It's about reusing a very very popular brand to sell many tickets. Even if it sucks, many people will go to see it.
Did you ever think the reason they discountinued it was there was no demand?
Your explanation is simple but won't sit well here. "But the survey has lots of demand for Linux!".
What most people are missing is, that shouting in a web form and demanding Linux is easy and free. Putting your money down and buying those machines is not that easy.
The supporters of Linux are very vocal for sure, but most of them sport beige boxes bought from some completely different vendor, or they keep buying Windows laptops, since they are somewhat cheaper (because of all the craplets preinstalled).
That Dell decided not to put a huge blinking Linux laptop offer on their homepage is a poor excuse for a bad demand. If people knew enough to even know Linux is, they'd search for it and find it.
If they have no idea what the OS is and what effect it has on their computer, then they DO want Windows, since they DO want to run the mainstream software and games out there.
I'm reading this attempt of an article and wondering.. did someone change the meaning of the word "really" overnight and forgot to tell me?
Re:WARNING: Firefox 1.5 vs. 2.0 :: Old vs. New
on
A Bad Month for Firefox
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The defect information is fed back to the Toyota engineers, and they redesign the defective parts of the Camry. The third-year release of the Camry should be quite reliable. (Toyota [msn.com] has some of the highest rates of recalls [thestar.com] in the automotive industry. Toyota typically recalls nearly 10% of its vehicles -- versus "only" 7% for General Motors.)
If you are using your Web browser to do critical jobs like online banking, you should continue to use the latest iteration of Firefox 1.5. The latest iteration is version 1.5.0.10. If you are still using Firefox 1.5, look under the "Help" option to find the option, "Check for Updates", which will enable your to upgrade to 1.5.0.10.
Don't you find your advice and your example conflicting. You're urging us to use the second-year release of Camry versus the third-year release.
Just because it was called "2.0" doesn't mean it's really that new compared to 1.5. In fact there were more changes to the core of Firefox between 1.0 and 1.5, than 1.5 and 2.0.
What you see are mostly changes on the surface: new (uglier) icons, new (uglier) tabs, couple of usability changes to the UI. The core is virtually unchanged (except the regular minor patches).
why doesn't someone do a 'phone home' laptop insurance program.... It could be nicely open sourced, and run via a p2p network... The person who wants to track their stolen goods just pops the public key (stored on a CD/usb stick/online, generated on install) into the network and it comes back with the last known location. No?
This program has a minor flaw. I format the disk with my live CD and suddenly the whole "tracking" setup goes straight to computer hell.
It worked in this case since obviously this approach isn't popular AND the thief is dumb. Change just one of these, and you'll have the disk formatted before it had the chance to boot even once.
Notice the similarities when you replace "language" with "operating system".:O
Indeed, but having a "base of working apps" on the web is far less important, unless you're forced to reuse silly community efforts (phpBB etc) because the client is nickle-and-diming you.
A well built website may rely on good existing components, frameworks, but copy-pasting whole applications isn't the typical usage scenario a web developer is looking to have a career in.
Looks like this will also be "Month-of-me-working-harder-to-make-sure-my-site-i s-patched- and-updated-and-not-exploited-by-script-kiddies"
You can thank the PHP internals and Zend about this. Having to deal with them at some points, they are literally like having to handle a bunch of spoiled children on a mission to have fun on your expense.
I've said it plenty of times and I'll say it again: PHP is going down, fast. The only reason to use it right now, is because there's still some money to be made from clients with PHP sites, or clients who wants to pay thousands for a site, but only few bucks/month for your average PHP host (I know.. I don't get it either).
(Much) faster, more stable and more consistent alternatives currently include Mono (C# - an excellent language), Python, Java and possibly Ruby 2.0, from the looks of it.
- How exactly does a single centralised source fit in with the free market?
One word: utility companies.
- Imagine perpetual copyrights and no public domain. While, at the same time, artists are forced to hand over their right to control what happens to their work.
Here [daringfireball.net] is John Grubers translation. Spot on.
Spot on maybe, not for long though. How much music is out there? How many action movies? Comedies, TV series, cartoon, dramas...
Can you own all of it? Can you afford all of it? People instinctively want to own all that media since there has never been a single central, *reliable*, *compatible* and *immediate* source where they can go to and rent their media.
You buy it, since tommorow it may be out of stock and forever lost. You want to make sure it's always on your shelf to listen to it / watch it, and show it to friends, and maybe even your kids some day.
How does DRM / Internet change this? You no longer need to own all this media. It's too much trouble owning all this. The truth is you want most of it available, but it's not SO good that you wanna watch it every single day, you'll get sick of it fast, and there's new content produced every day.
Imagine being able to to rent a DRM-ed movie for 10-20 cents for specific 3 devices (example: three iPods, *or* your iPod, your PC, and your home cinema station), which expires in 3 days. And all movies produced worldwide instantly available in this central store, forever.
Beats ownership big time.
Would it happen? At some point it may, but greed will drive prices up, sales down, and some future era hippies will whine about DRM being evil.
It works even better if it is implanted in an infant, so that the brain can adapt to it as it grows. This will, of course, be considered child abuse when it is first done. In a century or two it will be considered abuse NOT to have it done for your kid.
That makes sense! I'd even go further and say than in a century or to it'd be abuse NOT to directly throw out your newborn in the trash and replace it with a robot toy!
Let's keep the discussion real. I also enjoy Ghost in the Shell series, it's very cool and futuristic, but even in that anime people didn't force implants on their infants unless they were really sick and needed it to live normally (or at all).
Where do they put said chip? The forehead or the back of the hand?
Can you really imagine them implanting a chip on your *forehead*? Why would the gospels then even say this? Can it be just a damn coincidence forced into that was way overused already?
It's 2007, if any of this was true, we'd all be RFID implanted roughly 8-9 years ago. Oh and by the way the world should've ended, but it didn't.
Guess someone up there rewrote the script since our rating is up. What a relief.
What isn't obvious is why people think short-range RFID is the same as battery-powered wild animal tracking collars. Are they just stupid? Look at the way RFID works.
I know a bunch of young, relatively technically competent guys, who are convinced The Government (aka. "They") want to implant those RFID chips to control their brains. They are dead serious about believing this.
All of my attempts to explain them what an RFID chip is were met with ridicule.
And you think people confusing them with tracking collars are stupid.
I can make a little announcement. Wikis are huge resource hogs,
If they are, why do you use PHP and MySQL? I'm a PHP developer myself and know that if "huge resource hog" support are requirement of the project, I should look towards a serious application server platform.
Also... the percentage of "Wikipedia sucks!.. Hey check out Citizendium (wink, wink)" articles on Slashdot is suspiciously rising last couple of weeks.
Is this some FUD marketing campaign going behind the scenes? Either way, it certainly looks like it.
After reading through the article I must conclude that while the author has made decoding current discs easier, AACS has NOT been "fully cracked". The key embedded in the current software may be expired in the future, rendering this method useless for discs produced after that expiration.
In theory yes, but how easy do you believe it is to update all those specialized video players, all offline?
Don't forget: the people who buy those already had to put up with paying premium for a HDTV, expensive players, and also make sure the TV, cable and player play together through HDMI.
If you start demanding they are hooked non-stop to Internet so they can receive the daily patches, it may just be the thing crossing the line of tolerance.
Also: the hard part is retrieving keys from pure hardware. The new keys come as firmware updates over the network.. it's even easier to update those HD-DVD/BlueRay rippers. After all, you have even the keys they encrypted the patches with: you have the player, don't you.
All in all, the "super morphing update" ability of AACS seems more like a way for the AACS developers to claim "the war it's not over", when it effectively is over.
Companies will refuse to use the new keys for their disks, since they will be incompatible with plenty of the players out there, the AACS creators will whine a bit about how "they could fix it but they don't wanna, not our fault", and this is where it'll end.
Slashdot Mirror
Slow to start, maybe. But for rendering, firefox is second in speed only to IE. A big part of this is due to the way KHTML/Webkit waits for a bunch of images to download before it starts rendering.
I don't know what benchmarks use to achieve this, but if I open, say, 3-4 tabs from Slashdot (or any site) on Firefox I'll be waiting 4-5 seconds just for the tabs to appear and Firefox to realize what's going on.
The same operation on IE/Opera is instant, and loading is smooth, without CPU hickups. In Firefox, even the load animation icon can't move smoothly, and hangs every half second, due to CPU load.
A few months ago, I switched to Firefox because I was convinced Safari was slowing down my system. Just this morning, I fired up Safari again - and it is at least three times as fast as Firefox. Don't know what I was thinking...
:( /I know about IE webdev toolbar and it's cool, but come on../.
Same experience on Windows. I have lots of RAM, so let's say I don't care it wants to eat 100-200 MB ram for a few tabs. But I can't help the CPU problem. Not only it slows everything down terribly when loading pages (I frequently launch task manager to see what process eats my CPU and usually Firefox is that process), but it's still slow and unresponsive.
Many Firefox users will think I'm just imagining or having system specific issue, but it's the same experience on any system I tried so far: people, you've forgotten what a fast browser means. Safari/IE/Opera are all few *times* faster than a bare bones firefox install.
I'm still using Firefox though.. FireBug/WebDev Toolbar have no viable alternatives on the other browsers
OK, so I upload my 20MB PSD file and run a gaussian blur on it. Who's CPU is doing that? Unless it is ActiveX (Win32 only) or a Java plug-in (most likely not super efficient on raw CPU features), is it going to be hosted on their servers? Javascript won't handle it very well, I'd have to think.
.NET framework...
Probably not going to be a huge deal, but those real-time previews of CPU intensive filters are nice on the machine local installation; only hope those make it to the online as well.
I don't remember anyone said it should necessarily run from your *browser*. That said, Flash can do blur and lots of blending modes at native C speeds, as it has those implemented at its core.. If you run it from a tiny (1MB) exe shell, it will also access your local files directly and being able to save back there... Hm, tiny local shell for web apps, does that sound familiar?
Oh but yes! It's Adobe's very-soon-to-be-released Apollo platform! Combining PDF, JS/CSS/HTML and Flash into a runtime, much like a little
And suddenly the offer starts looking dead serious and possible.
(For the record, I liked Transformers when I was a kid, although I was never a hardcore fan; I am looking forward to the new movie. The trailers made me mildly giddy.)
A version of the full script leaked out and people reacted very negatively against it. Full of cliches, we have also "the nerd gets the girl in the end" moment other such non-sense.
The trailer confirmed not much of the script has changes as well. When people reacted negatively to the early Superman script, it was dropped and rewritten (granted to something very bland, but at least not absurd). We don't have this situation here.
I can tell you that there's no such a situation out there: a good movie with a terrible script. Of course, the effect might redeem seeing the movie in the end: It's a bunch of giant battle robots that can turn into cars. They got the kids for sure.
Time to examine how this works, and how to block it from your website. You are allowed to protect unwanted use and access of your copyrighted information, after all!
Don't be a hypocrite. It'll do nothing to your "copyrighted information" put match it against a set of hashes and discard it if it doesn't match. If it matches, an operator would look for signs of illegal activity.
In other words, nothing that the industry isn't doing right now, but now more automated.
Noone likes RIAA suing grandmas and 10 yo girls, or terrible DRM schemes and so on. Doesn't mean you gotta get silly and react "by default" on any technology designed to help protect industry's intellectual rights.
---
I'm only concerned with those crawlers going mad and sucking the bandwidth out of a site which hosts plenty of media files. Or dumbly downloading everything (zips, executables) and you having to foot the bill for the spent traffic in the end.
Google's Mozilla-based bot was found doing such damage on some sites (crawling at incredible speed, bringing the sites down with it), which I suppose were a number of isolated incidents since this bot is still being worked on.
Still, Google wouldn't download large binary files it can't understand, and this is likely to do so, and match everything against the "watermark", otherwise it'd be too simple to fool it. I just hope they implement it properly, if even because they'll have to pay for this bandwidth as well (aggregated).
The series were successful in other time, where what they offered was novel, and wearing spandex as a uniform wasn't ridiculous.
I can't be too wrong that they will come out with a mix of references/cliches from the original series, in attempt to please the fans, and also try to modernize everything, to make it look plausible for a new audience.
The result would likely be something like the upcoming Transformers movie. Pissing off both the fans and the new audience looking for a serious movie in attempt to please both.
It doesn't matter however, since a new Star Trek movie isn't about movie making. It's about reusing a very very popular brand to sell many tickets. Even if it sucks, many people will go to see it.
What if someone only made available a compiled copy of something? It'd be scary...
.NET soon, so maybe this will let you sleep at night.
You're too easily scared. Open or not, the script runs on the server, so that script kiddies can't tweak it on their clients.
Also they are migrating to
Did you ever think the reason they discountinued it was there was no demand?
Your explanation is simple but won't sit well here. "But the survey has lots of demand for Linux!".
What most people are missing is, that shouting in a web form and demanding Linux is easy and free. Putting your money down and buying those machines is not that easy.
The supporters of Linux are very vocal for sure, but most of them sport beige boxes bought from some completely different vendor, or they keep buying Windows laptops, since they are somewhat cheaper (because of all the craplets preinstalled).
That Dell decided not to put a huge blinking Linux laptop offer on their homepage is a poor excuse for a bad demand. If people knew enough to even know Linux is, they'd search for it and find it.
If they have no idea what the OS is and what effect it has on their computer, then they DO want Windows, since they DO want to run the mainstream software and games out there.
I'm reading this attempt of an article and wondering.. did someone change the meaning of the word "really" overnight and forgot to tell me?
The defect information is fed back to the Toyota engineers, and they redesign the defective parts of the Camry. The third-year release of the Camry should be quite reliable. (Toyota [msn.com] has some of the highest rates of recalls [thestar.com] in the automotive industry. Toyota typically recalls nearly 10% of its vehicles -- versus "only" 7% for General Motors.)
If you are using your Web browser to do critical jobs like online banking, you should continue to use the latest iteration of Firefox 1.5. The latest iteration is version 1.5.0.10. If you are still using Firefox 1.5, look under the "Help" option to find the option, "Check for Updates", which will enable your to upgrade to 1.5.0.10.
Don't you find your advice and your example conflicting. You're urging us to use the second-year release of Camry versus the third-year release.
Just because it was called "2.0" doesn't mean it's really that new compared to 1.5. In fact there were more changes to the core of Firefox between 1.0 and 1.5, than 1.5 and 2.0.
What you see are mostly changes on the surface: new (uglier) icons, new (uglier) tabs, couple of usability changes to the UI. The core is virtually unchanged (except the regular minor patches).
"Adobe Flex is not available on Mac."
Bzzzt. Yes it is:
I've been preparing this argument since 2006. So it still counts.
Dude, it was a joke... seriously.
Don't you dare clarify your post, and ruin my bad mood!
That's not surprising. According to the design department over here, Adobe products aren't even made for the P
How ironic then, that the Windows version of their software frequently has features the Mac version doesn't.
Until recently, Premiere Pro was not available for Mac. Adobe Audition is not available on Mac.
Adobe Flex is not available on Mac.
Of course designers don't care about facts, they're creative people.
why doesn't someone do a 'phone home' laptop insurance program .... It could be nicely open sourced, and run via a p2p network ... The person who wants to track their stolen goods just pops the public key (stored on a CD/usb stick/online, generated on install) into the network and it comes back with the last known location. No?
This program has a minor flaw. I format the disk with my live CD and suddenly the whole "tracking" setup goes straight to computer hell.
It worked in this case since obviously this approach isn't popular AND the thief is dumb. Change just one of these, and you'll have the disk formatted before it had the chance to boot even once.
Are you telling me Dave Jones was manipulated with CGI? Damn you, Gore Verbinski !!!!
How much effort are you willing to put into finding black market light bulbs?
Mail your local politician? Set up protests? Suicide bomb yourself?
Notice the similarities when you replace "language" with "operating system". :O
Indeed, but having a "base of working apps" on the web is far less important, unless you're forced to reuse silly community efforts (phpBB etc) because the client is nickle-and-diming you.
A well built website may rely on good existing components, frameworks, but copy-pasting whole applications isn't the typical usage scenario a web developer is looking to have a career in.
Looks like this will also be "Month-of-me-working-harder-to-make-sure-my-site-i s-patched- and-updated-and-not-exploited-by-script-kiddies"
You can thank the PHP internals and Zend about this. Having to deal with them at some points, they are literally like having to handle a bunch of spoiled children on a mission to have fun on your expense.
I've said it plenty of times and I'll say it again: PHP is going down, fast. The only reason to use it right now, is because there's still some money to be made from clients with PHP sites, or clients who wants to pay thousands for a site, but only few bucks/month for your average PHP host (I know.. I don't get it either).
(Much) faster, more stable and more consistent alternatives currently include Mono (C# - an excellent language), Python, Java and possibly Ruby 2.0, from the looks of it.
- How exactly does a single centralised source fit in with the free market?
One word: utility companies.
- Imagine perpetual copyrights and no public domain. While, at the same time, artists are forced to hand over their right to control what happens to their work.
I never said that, did I.
Here [daringfireball.net] is John Grubers translation. Spot on.
Spot on maybe, not for long though. How much music is out there? How many action movies? Comedies, TV series, cartoon, dramas...
Can you own all of it? Can you afford all of it? People instinctively want to own all that media since there has never been a single central, *reliable*, *compatible* and *immediate* source where they can go to and rent their media.
You buy it, since tommorow it may be out of stock and forever lost. You want to make sure it's always on your shelf to listen to it / watch it, and show it to friends, and maybe even your kids some day.
How does DRM / Internet change this? You no longer need to own all this media. It's too much trouble owning all this. The truth is you want most of it available, but it's not SO good that you wanna watch it every single day, you'll get sick of it fast, and there's new content produced every day.
Imagine being able to to rent a DRM-ed movie for 10-20 cents for specific 3 devices (example: three iPods, *or* your iPod, your PC, and your home cinema station), which expires in 3 days. And all movies produced worldwide instantly available in this central store, forever.
Beats ownership big time.
Would it happen? At some point it may, but greed will drive prices up, sales down, and some future era hippies will whine about DRM being evil.
It works even better if it is implanted in an infant, so that the brain can adapt to it as it grows. This will, of course, be considered child abuse when it is first done. In a century or two it will be considered abuse NOT to have it done for your kid.
That makes sense! I'd even go further and say than in a century or to it'd be abuse NOT to directly throw out your newborn in the trash and replace it with a robot toy!
Let's keep the discussion real. I also enjoy Ghost in the Shell series, it's very cool and futuristic, but even in that anime people didn't force implants on their infants unless they were really sick and needed it to live normally (or at all).
Where do they put said chip? The forehead or the back of the hand?
Can you really imagine them implanting a chip on your *forehead*? Why would the gospels then even say this?
Can it be just a damn coincidence forced into that was way overused already?
It's 2007, if any of this was true, we'd all be RFID implanted roughly 8-9 years ago. Oh and by the way the world should've ended, but it didn't.
Guess someone up there rewrote the script since our rating is up. What a relief.
What isn't obvious is why people think short-range RFID is the same as battery-powered wild animal tracking collars. Are they just stupid? Look at the way RFID works.
I know a bunch of young, relatively technically competent guys, who are convinced The Government (aka. "They") want to implant those RFID chips to control their brains. They are dead serious about believing this.
All of my attempts to explain them what an RFID chip is were met with ridicule.
And you think people confusing them with tracking collars are stupid.
I can make a little announcement. Wikis are huge resource hogs,
.. Hey check out Citizendium (wink, wink)" articles on Slashdot is suspiciously rising last couple of weeks.
If they are, why do you use PHP and MySQL? I'm a PHP developer myself and know that if "huge resource hog" support are requirement of the project, I should look towards a serious application server platform.
Also... the percentage of "Wikipedia sucks!
Is this some FUD marketing campaign going behind the scenes? Either way, it certainly looks like it.
After reading through the article I must conclude that while the author has made decoding current discs easier, AACS has NOT been "fully cracked". The key embedded in the current software may be expired in the future, rendering this method useless for discs produced after that expiration.
In theory yes, but how easy do you believe it is to update all those specialized video players, all offline?
Don't forget: the people who buy those already had to put up with paying premium for a HDTV, expensive players, and also make sure the TV, cable and player play together through HDMI.
If you start demanding they are hooked non-stop to Internet so they can receive the daily patches, it may just be the thing crossing the line of tolerance.
Also: the hard part is retrieving keys from pure hardware. The new keys come as firmware updates over the network.. it's even easier to update those HD-DVD/BlueRay rippers. After all, you have even the keys they encrypted the patches with: you have the player, don't you.
All in all, the "super morphing update" ability of AACS seems more like a way for the AACS developers to claim "the war it's not over", when it effectively is over.
Companies will refuse to use the new keys for their disks, since they will be incompatible with plenty of the players out there, the AACS creators will whine a bit about how "they could fix it but they don't wanna, not our fault", and this is where it'll end.