Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Scarey stuff

Scarey stuff

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
csharpquestion
16 Posts 8 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    fakefur
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638[^] Seriously. This is bad no? :~

    P D E J T 7 Replies Last reply
    0
    • F fakefur

      http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638[^] Seriously. This is bad no? :~

      P Offline
      P Offline
      Paul Watson
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      I'll wait for another source's opinion before I run for them thar hills. regards, Paul Watson South Africa PMW Photography Dan Bennett wrote: He could have at least included a perforated line for easy detachment - that would be intelligent design

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F fakefur

        http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638[^] Seriously. This is bad no? :~

        D Offline
        D Offline
        Daniel Turini
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        fakefur wrote: Seriously. This is bad no? Yes: nobody will buy it and Intel will spend a lot of time, effort and money in a product that won't sell, so their processors will become more expensive to compensate losses. I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • F fakefur

          http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638[^] Seriously. This is bad no? :~

          E Offline
          E Offline
          El Corazon
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          Always be cautious predicting the future crops, grasshopper. Much rain has yet to fall before next years crop. Everyone panicked over MS's Fahrenheit graphics platform, it died without reaching market. Everyone was concerned over Intel's initial method of 64bit (don't provide backward compatibility), and Intel eventually adopted a backward compatible method. It's easy to say this will happen in the future, but not even the giants can always move the entire market their way. Sometimes even the powerful bow to the majority. I'll reserve judgement until I see it as an official release. Afterall, wasn't it the same source we were joking last week over 10Ghz processors? :laugh: when predicting the future... see sig. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • F fakefur

            http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638[^] Seriously. This is bad no? :~

            J Offline
            J Offline
            Jim Crafton
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            This was out on slashdot as well last week. For myself I'd say: 1) Yawn, who cares if they lock out linux? There are other processor architectures it runs on. I'm really getting a tad bored with someone crying, and the whole linux comunity wringing their hands in collective agony, about the impending doom of linux everytime someone comes out with an article like this. This is almost as bad as the incessant navel gazing, and self-congratulatory back patting that Microsoft goes through every time some MS employee performs a mental fart on their blog and comes up with some goofy new-must-have-half-assed-vaporware technology that we all need to look at. 2) Double Yawn, people have been screaming about the falling sky of DRM doom for almost 5 years now. And we are still no closer to armageddon. Wake me up when there's even *one* remote, real, physical piece of working hardware that I can purchase that behaves this way. To the best of my knowledge none of this has come to fruition outside of some quasi interesting research lab. So remind me, why are we supposed to wet our pants now? Is this being advertised as a new chip that *all* general purpose PC's will be using, so that I will no longer be able to buy *any* kind of PC without having this kind of chip in it? I doubt it. It just occurred to me - I've just used "fart", "technology", "armageddon", and "doom" in a single post. I'll bet I'm now on a terrorist watchlist somewhere... ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!

            T F 2 Replies Last reply
            0
            • F fakefur

              http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638[^] Seriously. This is bad no? :~

              T Offline
              T Offline
              TheGreatAndPowerfulOz
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              This crap will die under its own weight. Just like DIVX did.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • J Jim Crafton

                This was out on slashdot as well last week. For myself I'd say: 1) Yawn, who cares if they lock out linux? There are other processor architectures it runs on. I'm really getting a tad bored with someone crying, and the whole linux comunity wringing their hands in collective agony, about the impending doom of linux everytime someone comes out with an article like this. This is almost as bad as the incessant navel gazing, and self-congratulatory back patting that Microsoft goes through every time some MS employee performs a mental fart on their blog and comes up with some goofy new-must-have-half-assed-vaporware technology that we all need to look at. 2) Double Yawn, people have been screaming about the falling sky of DRM doom for almost 5 years now. And we are still no closer to armageddon. Wake me up when there's even *one* remote, real, physical piece of working hardware that I can purchase that behaves this way. To the best of my knowledge none of this has come to fruition outside of some quasi interesting research lab. So remind me, why are we supposed to wet our pants now? Is this being advertised as a new chip that *all* general purpose PC's will be using, so that I will no longer be able to buy *any* kind of PC without having this kind of chip in it? I doubt it. It just occurred to me - I've just used "fart", "technology", "armageddon", and "doom" in a single post. I'll bet I'm now on a terrorist watchlist somewhere... ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!

                T Offline
                T Offline
                TheGreatAndPowerfulOz
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                Damn good post! I couldn't agree more!!!! DRM will die the same ignominous way DIVX died.

                D 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • J Jim Crafton

                  This was out on slashdot as well last week. For myself I'd say: 1) Yawn, who cares if they lock out linux? There are other processor architectures it runs on. I'm really getting a tad bored with someone crying, and the whole linux comunity wringing their hands in collective agony, about the impending doom of linux everytime someone comes out with an article like this. This is almost as bad as the incessant navel gazing, and self-congratulatory back patting that Microsoft goes through every time some MS employee performs a mental fart on their blog and comes up with some goofy new-must-have-half-assed-vaporware technology that we all need to look at. 2) Double Yawn, people have been screaming about the falling sky of DRM doom for almost 5 years now. And we are still no closer to armageddon. Wake me up when there's even *one* remote, real, physical piece of working hardware that I can purchase that behaves this way. To the best of my knowledge none of this has come to fruition outside of some quasi interesting research lab. So remind me, why are we supposed to wet our pants now? Is this being advertised as a new chip that *all* general purpose PC's will be using, so that I will no longer be able to buy *any* kind of PC without having this kind of chip in it? I doubt it. It just occurred to me - I've just used "fart", "technology", "armageddon", and "doom" in a single post. I'll bet I'm now on a terrorist watchlist somewhere... ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!

                  F Offline
                  F Offline
                  fakefur
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #8

                  Well actually isn't it the new Intel processors they are talking about? Wouldn't that count as Is this being advertised as a new chip that *all* general purpose PC's will be using, so that I will no longer be able to buy *any* kind of PC without having this kind of chip in it? As for I'm really getting a tad bored with someone crying, and the whole linux comunity wringing their hands in collective agony, about the impending doom of linux everytime someone comes out with an article like this. I think it is more that digital media content will be locked up and the definition of "fair use" will be changed to "pay per play". Now if all that sounds OK to you then I agree there is nothing to worry about. If (on the other hand) you are bothered by the increasing corporate takeover of the law making process in the US and their attempts at trying to spread their reach globally then I think it is troubling.

                  J 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • F fakefur

                    Well actually isn't it the new Intel processors they are talking about? Wouldn't that count as Is this being advertised as a new chip that *all* general purpose PC's will be using, so that I will no longer be able to buy *any* kind of PC without having this kind of chip in it? As for I'm really getting a tad bored with someone crying, and the whole linux comunity wringing their hands in collective agony, about the impending doom of linux everytime someone comes out with an article like this. I think it is more that digital media content will be locked up and the definition of "fair use" will be changed to "pay per play". Now if all that sounds OK to you then I agree there is nothing to worry about. If (on the other hand) you are bothered by the increasing corporate takeover of the law making process in the US and their attempts at trying to spread their reach globally then I think it is troubling.

                    J Offline
                    J Offline
                    Jim Crafton
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #9

                    fakefur wrote: I think it is more that digital media content will be locked up and the definition of "fair use" will be changed to "pay per play". Well you should probably qualify that with content by the big names like Disney, Sony, etc. I say fine, let them commit this idiocy, and the market will sort it out it pretty quickly. Now if someone passes a law that requires *all* digital content, of any sort, *must* use some sort of DRM, then that's a whole nother ball of wax. I'm pretty sure that would be a free speech issue. fakefur wrote: If (on the other hand) you are bothered by the increasing corporate takeover of the law making process in the US and their attempts at trying to spread their reach globally then I think it is troubling. I am extremely bothered by this. I just have a hard time getting worked up over this specific issue. Especially when I think the issue is overhyped, overwrought, semi-hysterical hand waving over something that will most likely be corrected in market when it's launched. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!

                    F 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • T TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

                      Damn good post! I couldn't agree more!!!! DRM will die the same ignominous way DIVX died.

                      D Offline
                      D Offline
                      Daniel Turini
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #10

                      ahz wrote: DRM will die the same ignominous way DIVX died. When did Divx die? I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!

                      T 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • D Daniel Turini

                        ahz wrote: DRM will die the same ignominous way DIVX died. When did Divx die? I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!

                        T Offline
                        T Offline
                        TheGreatAndPowerfulOz
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #11

                        Behind death of Divx were angry customers[^] Published: June 17, 1999, 6:40 AM PDT "In a nutshell, Divx is--or was--a pay-per-view variation of DVD introduced late last year by Circuit City. Today, Divx ceased operations, partly because of a lack of competitively priced players, partly because of a dearth of hot Divx movie titles, and mainly because of a consumer backlash which can only be compared to the reaction to New Coke. " Ding-Dong, Divx Is Dead[^] 01:15 PM Jun. 16, 1999 PT "For many, the death of Divx comes as little surprise. The DVD crowd has long regarded the product -- as well as the people behind it -- with suspicion and resentment." "But it was the product's potential for invasion of privacy that particularly infuriated DVD partisans." "Divx devices play back movies much as DVD players and VCRs do. But the creators designed the system so that the viewers would have to pay for each viewing of a movie." Sounds a lot like DRM doesn't it???

                        D 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • T TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

                          Behind death of Divx were angry customers[^] Published: June 17, 1999, 6:40 AM PDT "In a nutshell, Divx is--or was--a pay-per-view variation of DVD introduced late last year by Circuit City. Today, Divx ceased operations, partly because of a lack of competitively priced players, partly because of a dearth of hot Divx movie titles, and mainly because of a consumer backlash which can only be compared to the reaction to New Coke. " Ding-Dong, Divx Is Dead[^] 01:15 PM Jun. 16, 1999 PT "For many, the death of Divx comes as little surprise. The DVD crowd has long regarded the product -- as well as the people behind it -- with suspicion and resentment." "But it was the product's potential for invasion of privacy that particularly infuriated DVD partisans." "Divx devices play back movies much as DVD players and VCRs do. But the creators designed the system so that the viewers would have to pay for each viewing of a movie." Sounds a lot like DRM doesn't it???

                          D Offline
                          D Offline
                          Daniel Turini
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #12

                          Thanks for the link. I asked that because a few days I ago I saw a Philips ad bragging about DivX support, but that's probably because of the market of "alternative" videos... I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • F fakefur

                            http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638[^] Seriously. This is bad no? :~

                            C Offline
                            C Offline
                            code frog 0
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #13

                            The open source community is divided into two groups those who think and those who pretend. Those who pretend will cry out about all the unfair treatment and this and that and all the other anti-ms crap they can vomit up. However, the open source thinkers will have one reaction. They will take a big slug from their slurpees wipe their nose with their tatoo covered arms, wiggle their birkenstock clad toes and collectively chuckle under their own private banner that goes something like this, "Hey boys. Check this out. We've got some new code to crack." and they will kick back on their PII-400's and they will disassemble the architecture they will reverse engineer the concept and eventually crack the code and most likely before it gets released. Quite simply the open source community could really and truly give a rats butt about what companies do to try and hurt Linux. The real thinkers in open source are not intimidated by much of anything. They'll be just fine and you know what? That's bad news for the commercial companies. Why? Because the open source community just rolls on. Each new effort to quash the open source engine fails and so each subsequent reaction gets more extreme. The net result is equilibrium. There's a natural balance in all of this. Microsoft and Intel and Disney and everyone has a right to their buck. Even though they have lots of bucks they have a right to it. The open source community has never cared about the buck (and that's plain to see). The open source community has tried to give a working PC to anyone and everyone. So some consumers will flock to the anti-piracy hardware and software in ignorance. Others will grudgingly accept it and many, many more will go, "That's a crock!" It's a double-edged sword though because invariably it draws more people to open source. But open source is even screwed up in to many ways. Licensing, support, bug-fixes, documentation are so bad that the silver bullet open source could be never will be. Like I said, all this stuff will balance out just fine. You'll have your iPod, your Linux mail server and your Windows desktop and all will be cool. Life always seems to find it's own natural balance eh? If you want to see the funnies thing though and it would certainly be a repost here. Google for "spiffy in a tux" then join the growing mass of Linux super villains and fembots with a penchant for evil. In the end it's all just a bunch of spun-up hype. Balance dude it's all going to balance. - Rex

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • F fakefur

                              http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638[^] Seriously. This is bad no? :~

                              J Offline
                              J Offline
                              Joe Woodbury
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #14

                              If I understand right, this isn't just for Microsoft. This is the platform Apple will be using for the x86 Mac. Anyway, the whole article is a bunch of whining by freeloaders who don't want to pay for anything. In the midst of all their hysterical rantings, they suggest that the only way to watch a digital movie will be through this platform. Huh? What stupid boat did these people fall off of? Beyond the stupidity of that paranoia, does anyone really believe that this new DRM scheme won't be cracked in weeks, if not days? Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • J Jim Crafton

                                fakefur wrote: I think it is more that digital media content will be locked up and the definition of "fair use" will be changed to "pay per play". Well you should probably qualify that with content by the big names like Disney, Sony, etc. I say fine, let them commit this idiocy, and the market will sort it out it pretty quickly. Now if someone passes a law that requires *all* digital content, of any sort, *must* use some sort of DRM, then that's a whole nother ball of wax. I'm pretty sure that would be a free speech issue. fakefur wrote: If (on the other hand) you are bothered by the increasing corporate takeover of the law making process in the US and their attempts at trying to spread their reach globally then I think it is troubling. I am extremely bothered by this. I just have a hard time getting worked up over this specific issue. Especially when I think the issue is overhyped, overwrought, semi-hysterical hand waving over something that will most likely be corrected in market when it's launched. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!

                                F Offline
                                F Offline
                                fakefur
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #15

                                I do agree that it will *probably* be sorted out by market forces BUT typical consumers don't know about this stuff and probably won't care until it becomes too late. With both MS and Intel being and having been sued left right and centre for monopolistic practices I do find it very very troubling that they *might* be about to try to tie up online digital content like this. Don't forget that with Apple opting for Intel now too they can get their content wrapped up this way too. A simple upgrade to iPod's and the DRM can be enforced to all market segments that matter to Hollywood. And that would be game over. Welcome to pay per play. That's why it bothers me.

                                J 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • F fakefur

                                  I do agree that it will *probably* be sorted out by market forces BUT typical consumers don't know about this stuff and probably won't care until it becomes too late. With both MS and Intel being and having been sued left right and centre for monopolistic practices I do find it very very troubling that they *might* be about to try to tie up online digital content like this. Don't forget that with Apple opting for Intel now too they can get their content wrapped up this way too. A simple upgrade to iPod's and the DRM can be enforced to all market segments that matter to Hollywood. And that would be game over. Welcome to pay per play. That's why it bothers me.

                                  J Offline
                                  J Offline
                                  Jim Crafton
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #16

                                  fakefur wrote: Welcome to pay per play. Only if the customer *buys* it. If no one buys the content, some other enterprising company will step in. It may take a year or three for it to correct itself, depending on how braindead the "big guys" are about this, but it will happen. I do not think people will be horribly keen about *never* being able to own the hard copy content, like you can when you buy a physical DVD or CD (or whatever). Like the other guy mentioned with Divx, this will sort itself out pretty quickly, *unless* the media companies set up some sort of limits by changing the law as well as changing the hardware. That would get ugly, but like I said before, I suspect that would entail some sort of violation of free speech, and that would ultimately get turned over. Or who knows, maybe I'm just being hopelessly naive, and these bastards will just end up steamrolling us all :) ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  Reply
                                  • Reply as topic
                                  Log in to reply
                                  • Oldest to Newest
                                  • Newest to Oldest
                                  • Most Votes


                                  • Login

                                  • Don't have an account? Register

                                  • Login or register to search.
                                  • First post
                                    Last post
                                  0
                                  • Categories
                                  • Recent
                                  • Tags
                                  • Popular
                                  • World
                                  • Users
                                  • Groups