This is a plot by the RIAA to simplify the language, so that they can produce automated rap generators to seel music from. Oh wait, what? It's been invented... 50 what?
The most common general way (the [i]only[/i] general way to my knowledge) to pull this off losslessly is for the virtual audio patch cable to be a Windows audio driver, i.e. to pretend it's a soundcard. Under pressure of certain large-scale copyright holders, Microsoft seeks to eliminate this possiblity. You may have noticed the whole fuss about signed drivers in Widnows XP: you get scary warnings if you install a driver Microsoft has not approved. The Microsoft guys have a policy not to approve any sort of virtual device driver (as explained by the Nero virtual CD installer); I'll let you figure out why.
While this protection does little more than annoy you with popups today, Microsoft are pushing for "Trusted Computing", which will make it technically possible to prevent any unauthorized drivers from being used; which will essentially disable all virtual audio patch cables once and for all. You'll have to do it with a real analog cable....
Similar technical ideas are the chief argument why the **AAs would never dare to support a free operating system with their audio/video formats, even with binary players. We'll have to decrypt them ourselves.
As much as I love the EFF and everything they do (I donate every month), I don't like the movie on its purely presentational qualities.
1. It presents too many things too fast. Everything happends too fast. I showed it to someone unfamiliar with the issue, and who had only vaguely heard some of the terms used (analog hole, fair use, and the like). Her reaction was in the lines of "Huh? What the...? Can you play that again?"
2. It uses a foolishly cartoonish "superhero" style. When I see those overly comic-style "superhero" images with sharp lines, simple colors, and dumb logos on their chests, I find them stupid. They look stupid. This gives the whole video a comic feel, taking away any seriousness it might have wanted to imply. It fails to shock the unsuspecting viewer with what should be a shocking revelation. Don't get me wrong; the problem is not any crude drawing, but the adherence to the "comic superhero" style. Even the voice-over sticks to it...
3. It doesn't explain anything. What's going on? This is the most difficult one to get right, but a video has to at least try to explain part of the issue. You could say it only tries to turn your attention to the issue, but it doesn't... the video, as it is, requires one to do some serious background reading. How many people, who have never bothered with the issue before, are going to just stop what they were doing and start reading about DRM?
Number 2 is the biggest flaw in my opinion. Most people would oppose DRM if they knew about it, but if I send the link to anyone who's even a little sceptic about the importance of opposing DRM and the magnitude of its danger, that person would laugh at me. One already did, saying "What the hell is this bullshit?". The question was about the cartoonish guys, not the issue presented. I love the idea though, and hope they will come up with something better next time.
Whether some software is open source is equivalent to whether it conforms to all points in this definition. There you have it, debate settled.
It is an entirely different issue if this definition can be legally enforced; it cannot, as far as I know. So there is no mechanism preventing companies from making noise by falsely using the term. That is why one shuold always take an "open source" or "free software" claim with a grain of salt, and verify the claim carefully.
Is anyone surprised? Of course the US government would not let the EU beat it to a crappy law! [proud] Just remember, Americans, that we got fucked first on this one! [/proud] Yes, that's right, this time you're following us, hehe! When it comes to ridiculous, hard to implement, privacy-violating, and generally all-around evil laws, it's usually the other way around. [proud] But not this time! [/proud]
1. Choose a Microsoft program. Select a standard feature that for some reason they are only implementing in the next version to keep up with competition (OpenOffice has had integrated PDF writing for years.)
2. Implement selected feature in a separate application, that integrates with the application. Extra bonus if you happened to develop a part of that feature (the PDF format) or the need for it.
3. Sue Microsoft for antitrust.
4. Make money!
5. Extra bonus: improve your public image with this beautiful deed (suing Microsoft).
In unrelated news, I'm looking for a qualified programming team for a startup. We'll be implementing a Direct3D-based windowing system for Windows...
He may not be a scientist, and he may be wrong about global warming. But he does have a point about science, consensus, and poitical agendas. Perhaps you are as wrong in critisizing him and calling me a stupid sheep as I am in calling his speech a good one. Or perhaps you're right. Either way, could we please keep the discussion civilized and free of offensive remarks about people we have no knowledge of?
Yes! A friend of mine with a laptop with one of these cards said that with XOrg 7 came the first time he had hardware-accelerated OpenGL in Linux.
Please allow me to critisize you for a moment: I've been running 7.0 since it came out (before it was in ~x86 even). I'm perfectly sane. Somebody has to test new software if it is ever to become stable. Also, everyone will have to do the transition sooner it later, so I might as well do it now. The modularized system has been incredibly stable and error free; you (and I, and everyone) should be very thankful to Gentoo's wonderful XOrg team for figuring it all out and delivering evrrything so smoothly. Please don't call me, or them, or anyone insane just for playing around with something new. It's how Linux happened, after all.
I understand and agree with you. This is my own late-night carelessness: What I should say there is "You can't make a human automatically immune to all diseases possible, without some (unknown) drug." You can, however, have a practically, not theoretically, immune Linux system.
The human immune system is good, but diseases adapt to it, just as computer threats adapt to the security provisions of the system attacked. The difference is that we need these external medicines because evolution is slow and will not adapt adequately to new threats. In addition it will advance future, but the specific individual will hardly change. A computer can change very quickly and easily, and changes can be applied to an existing functioning system. Humans cannot have their software reinstalled or their data backed-up (yet). These are the fundamental differences.
My point was that this overused analogy installs the wrong idea in Joe User
Technically you're right... technically. In the mind of Joe User, however, spyware is something that Just Exists (TM), just like human diseases*, and is not dependant on the underlying OS. (After all, what is the difference between an operating system and a processor?!) In Joe's view of the IT world, the logical and only way to fight spyware is with an anti-spyware program.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that MS released a spyware-proof uber-secure OS. They'd be more than happy to proclaim it: "Better security! No more spyware! Ever!". And there'd be Joe User, plagued by spyware for years and used to it saying to him/her/itself: "Yeah, right - that's what they said last time on the XP setup screen! I'm not going to believe them. I know I need an anti-spyware solution."
Two months ago I installed Linux on a machine at home. One person kept asking me if I were sure that nothing bad could happen, or if he should install anti-virus/anti-spyware anyway, just to feel more secure.
* What I've said above is exactly the reason why the "virus" analogy of malware to human diseases is pushed too far. You can't make a human immune to a disease (yet) without drugs. You can improve an OS significantly.
Or maybe that's how things are supposed to be? Maybe what Microsoft wants to convince Joe User is that: "You'll need to upgrade so much anyway, why not wait a little and buy a whole new PC with Vista preinstalled?"
Why are you acting surprised? Vista will run on much less stellar machines. These requirements are there becase:
1) Microsoft wants people to have a reason to upgrade, so that OEMs are happy, and will stick to Windows rather than start selling cheap machines with a free OS preinstalled - the single pillar that will singlehandedly ensure that Bill's Empire will not fall anytime soon.
2) To ensure that people will have acceptable performance even after they install hundreds of bloated applications, firewalls, virus scanners, adware scanners, Bonzi Buddy screensavers, free wallpaper switchers, device drivers thinking their hardware is the most important component in the system, Viruses, Infections, Spyware, Trojans, Adware, and last but not least least, Microsoft Office.
That said, I still make some money fixing XP machines that are mainframes compared to what you were supposed to have back when Windows Xtra Profit came out, so nothing is new.
these new digital scenarios in every corner of the world, from Indianapolis to Istanbul
As usual, the USA is the center of a world, and those exotic other places are in the corners. Sir William Gates should be awakened to the realization that as an approximately spherical object, our planet does not have corners!
Eh, but don't get me wrong, I'm used to it. After all in the room analogy, the USA must be the Windows (TM) of the world, and that's a lot worse than being in a corner;)
Rockstar and Microsoft have teamed up to do exclusive episodic content in the GTA gameworld for the 360.
Could somebody please explain to me why so many developpers (think Valve) have lately become obsessed with episodic games? What is the point in that, besides the obvious money milking argument?
Slashdot Mirror
This is a plot by the RIAA to simplify the language, so that they can produce automated rap generators to seel music from. Oh wait, what? It's been invented... 50 what?
The most common general way (the [i]only[/i] general way to my knowledge) to pull this off losslessly is for the virtual audio patch cable to be a Windows audio driver, i.e. to pretend it's a soundcard. Under pressure of certain large-scale copyright holders, Microsoft seeks to eliminate this possiblity. You may have noticed the whole fuss about signed drivers in Widnows XP: you get scary warnings if you install a driver Microsoft has not approved. The Microsoft guys have a policy not to approve any sort of virtual device driver (as explained by the Nero virtual CD installer); I'll let you figure out why.
While this protection does little more than annoy you with popups today, Microsoft are pushing for "Trusted Computing", which will make it technically possible to prevent any unauthorized drivers from being used; which will essentially disable all virtual audio patch cables once and for all. You'll have to do it with a real analog cable....
Similar technical ideas are the chief argument why the **AAs would never dare to support a free operating system with their audio/video formats, even with binary players. We'll have to decrypt them ourselves.
You do realize that "the life of the author" is not exactly optimal, considering that copyright can be held by a corporation?
The guy's last name is Ozzie...
:))
Does that remind anyone else of the Ozzie from Monkey Island 4? How fitting indeed
As much as I love the EFF and everything they do (I donate every month), I don't like the movie on its purely presentational qualities.
1. It presents too many things too fast. Everything happends too fast. I showed it to someone unfamiliar with the issue, and who had only vaguely heard some of the terms used (analog hole, fair use, and the like). Her reaction was in the lines of "Huh? What the...? Can you play that again?"
2. It uses a foolishly cartoonish "superhero" style. When I see those overly comic-style "superhero" images with sharp lines, simple colors, and dumb logos on their chests, I find them stupid. They look stupid. This gives the whole video a comic feel, taking away any seriousness it might have wanted to imply. It fails to shock the unsuspecting viewer with what should be a shocking revelation. Don't get me wrong; the problem is not any crude drawing, but the adherence to the "comic superhero" style. Even the voice-over sticks to it...
3. It doesn't explain anything. What's going on? This is the most difficult one to get right, but a video has to at least try to explain part of the issue. You could say it only tries to turn your attention to the issue, but it doesn't... the video, as it is, requires one to do some serious background reading. How many people, who have never bothered with the issue before, are going to just stop what they were doing and start reading about DRM?
Number 2 is the biggest flaw in my opinion. Most people would oppose DRM if they knew about it, but if I send the link to anyone who's even a little sceptic about the importance of opposing DRM and the magnitude of its danger, that person would laugh at me. One already did, saying "What the hell is this bullshit?". The question was about the cartoonish guys, not the issue presented. I love the idea though, and hope they will come up with something better next time.
In turn, the company has employed black hat hackers for what is called a penetration, or pen, test team.
Why, the only one who's getting penetrated in the end will be the user...
Besides, shouldn't those be RedHat hackers there? I know, that joke was dumb.
The term "open source" has an official definition right here: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Whether some software is open source is equivalent to whether it conforms to all points in this definition. There you have it, debate settled.
It is an entirely different issue if this definition can be legally enforced; it cannot, as far as I know. So there is no mechanism preventing companies from making noise by falsely using the term. That is why one shuold always take an "open source" or "free software" claim with a grain of salt, and verify the claim carefully.
Is anyone surprised? Of course the US government would not let the EU beat it to a crappy law! [proud] Just remember, Americans, that we got fucked first on this one! [/proud] Yes, that's right, this time you're following us, hehe! When it comes to ridiculous, hard to implement, privacy-violating, and generally all-around evil laws, it's usually the other way around. [proud] But not this time! [/proud]
Recipe to make money today:
1. Choose a Microsoft program. Select a standard feature that for some reason they are only implementing in the next version to keep up with competition (OpenOffice has had integrated PDF writing for years.)
2. Implement selected feature in a separate application, that integrates with the application. Extra bonus if you happened to develop a part of that feature (the PDF format) or the need for it.
3. Sue Microsoft for antitrust.
4. Make money!
5. Extra bonus: improve your public image with this beautiful deed (suing Microsoft).
In unrelated news, I'm looking for a qualified programming team for a startup. We'll be implementing a Direct3D-based windowing system for Windows...
There's a reply to TFA posted on www.defectivebydesign.org
http://defectivebydesign.org/node/78
He may not be a scientist, and he may be wrong about global warming. But he does have a point about science, consensus, and poitical agendas. Perhaps you are as wrong in critisizing him and calling me a stupid sheep as I am in calling his speech a good one. Or perhaps you're right. Either way, could we please keep the discussion civilized and free of offensive remarks about people we have no knowledge of?
The best lecture on global warming I've ever read is this:
s _quote04.html
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeche
Is OpenGL hardware for S3 Savage in 7.0?
Yes! A friend of mine with a laptop with one of these cards said that with XOrg 7 came the first time he had hardware-accelerated OpenGL in Linux.
Please allow me to critisize you for a moment: I've been running 7.0 since it came out (before it was in ~x86 even). I'm perfectly sane. Somebody has to test new software if it is ever to become stable. Also, everyone will have to do the transition sooner it later, so I might as well do it now. The modularized system has been incredibly stable and error free; you (and I, and everyone) should be very thankful to Gentoo's wonderful XOrg team for figuring it all out and delivering evrrything so smoothly. Please don't call me, or them, or anyone insane just for playing around with something new. It's how Linux happened, after all.
I understand and agree with you. This is my own late-night carelessness: What I should say there is "You can't make a human automatically immune to all diseases possible, without some (unknown) drug." You can, however, have a practically, not theoretically, immune Linux system.
The human immune system is good, but diseases adapt to it, just as computer threats adapt to the security provisions of the system attacked. The difference is that we need these external medicines because evolution is slow and will not adapt adequately to new threats. In addition it will advance future, but the specific individual will hardly change. A computer can change very quickly and easily, and changes can be applied to an existing functioning system. Humans cannot have their software reinstalled or their data backed-up (yet). These are the fundamental differences.
My point was that this overused analogy installs the wrong idea in Joe User
Remember the reason why the Titanic sunk was because everyone thought it to be unsinkable.
No. Titanic sank because it was not open-source.
Technically you're right... technically. In the mind of Joe User, however, spyware is something that Just Exists (TM), just like human diseases*, and is not dependant on the underlying OS. (After all, what is the difference between an operating system and a processor?!) In Joe's view of the IT world, the logical and only way to fight spyware is with an anti-spyware program.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that MS released a spyware-proof uber-secure OS. They'd be more than happy to proclaim it: "Better security! No more spyware! Ever!". And there'd be Joe User, plagued by spyware for years and used to it saying to him/her/itself: "Yeah, right - that's what they said last time on the XP setup screen! I'm not going to believe them. I know I need an anti-spyware solution."
Two months ago I installed Linux on a machine at home. One person kept asking me if I were sure that nothing bad could happen, or if he should install anti-virus/anti-spyware anyway, just to feel more secure.
* What I've said above is exactly the reason why the "virus" analogy of malware to human diseases is pushed too far. You can't make a human immune to a disease (yet) without drugs. You can improve an OS significantly.
Or maybe that's how things are supposed to be? Maybe what Microsoft wants to convince Joe User is that: "You'll need to upgrade so much anyway, why not wait a little and buy a whole new PC with Vista preinstalled?"
Why are you acting surprised? Vista will run on much less stellar machines. These requirements are there becase:
1) Microsoft wants people to have a reason to upgrade, so that OEMs are happy, and will stick to Windows rather than start selling cheap machines with a free OS preinstalled - the single pillar that will singlehandedly ensure that Bill's Empire will not fall anytime soon.
2) To ensure that people will have acceptable performance even after they install hundreds of bloated applications, firewalls, virus scanners, adware scanners, Bonzi Buddy screensavers, free wallpaper switchers, device drivers thinking their hardware is the most important component in the system, Viruses, Infections, Spyware, Trojans, Adware, and last but not least least, Microsoft Office.
That said, I still make some money fixing XP machines that are mainframes compared to what you were supposed to have back when Windows Xtra Profit came out, so nothing is new.
Oh, please. Every u83r g33k / l33t haxx0r knows that Gentoo's portage easily pwnz both of them!
these new digital scenarios in every corner of the world, from Indianapolis to Istanbul
;)
As usual, the USA is the center of a world, and those exotic other places are in the corners. Sir William Gates should be awakened to the realization that as an approximately spherical object, our planet does not have corners!
Eh, but don't get me wrong, I'm used to it. After all in the room analogy, the USA must be the Windows (TM) of the world, and that's a lot worse than being in a corner
Can we please have a car analogy?
They tried - and the universe, except for the brass cube, ceased to exist.
Are saying that this 'universe' process segfaulted?
Mod this "Insightful", not "Funny"! I was about to explain what this post demonstrated!
I guess Microsoft's "invention" still needs re____toring.
Rockstar and Microsoft have teamed up to do exclusive episodic content in the GTA gameworld for the 360.
Could somebody please explain to me why so many developpers (think Valve) have lately become obsessed with episodic games? What is the point in that, besides the obvious money milking argument?