Read Shimizu's paper about protecting software through hardware (She's the lead designer for the CELL's protection mechanism). It has nothing to do with obscurity, you simply can't reach the place where things get decrypted as it's on the CELL, in hardware. There are no 'key's to be found, it's not protected by software.

A few years ago I flew from The Netherlands to the USA for a Microsoft conference. At the airport I was asked who packed my suitcase. I was first unwilling to answer that kind of stupid questions but I was told to cooperate or I couldn't board the plane. I asked why these questions were necessary and I was told the USA required them. So I answered "My wife" (which was true). I was then asked "Do you trust your wife?". I was amazed about these kind of questions... wtf do you think .. of course I trust my wife. It went on and on...

When I arrived in the USA, I had my picture taken like I am some kind of criminal, fingerprints were taken (my own country doesn't even have my fingerprints!), I was asked where I stayed, when I would go back (it was written down in the passport), what I was going to do in the USA, why (!), and after that I was asked 10 (!) more times by various people what my business was in the USA, what I was going to do there. And not by normal people, but by people with assault rifles, army boots and what looked like combat police uniforms.

At that moment I decided: I'll never ever go to the USA again, until they become sane again.

Ps: when I and the rest of the people from my plane were waiting for the first customs counter (where you get your mugshot taken and fingerprints seized) border patrol was actively looking for people who held a passport with arabic characters in their hand. These people were taken aside.

Isn't there a line in the USA anthem which says 'land of the free' ? I don't know but what the USA is doing has little to do with 'freedom' IMHO.

I, as a professional ISV owning developer, can only pay my bills because of copyright. This way, I can write software for a living and sell licenses of my work to my customers. What you wrote is IMHO one of the most stupidest things I've ever read about copyright: why would someone who created something NOT own that work? You seem to think that person doesn't own that work, 'society' does.

Sorry, but that's just an excuse for ignoring the fact that you don't own the hard work of other people, they do.

I write software for a living. I have worked for 2 years full time on a new version and I sell that version for money. I can do so because copyright law exists: I _own_ the work I created.

I therefore fail to see why this is a bad thing. Who are you to say what *I* should do with the software I worked on for over 2 years full time? (mind you: I payed my bills from my own pocket) Copyright is a right given to people who create stuff to make THEM decide what they do with it, instead of the people who want to USE it. You for example are not in charge what should happen with my work, I am. And I think that's fair, as I wrote it, spend all my time on it and payed for it from my own pocket, you didn't do a thing for it, so why should you be entitled to use it freely? How am I then going to pay the bills?

It's shocking how much people here bash this composer, as this is a site which always has taken the stance against GPL violation.

If a person X writes a piece of code and licenses it under the GPL, it's X' decision. If I take that code and embed it in my own code, not giving credits to X nor open my own code, I thus 'stole' X' work. It's the same thing as with this sheetmusic: the composer asks money for his work, that's HIS choice, not anybody's elses. If someone else wants to use / have the sheetmusic, that person has to pay: obey the rules the creator of the work has stated.

It's strange that on a site where every GPL violation is big news and a lot of people show their support for the GPL etc. etc. it's apparently 'ok' to violate the rules some composer has stated for HIS work. It's not YOUR work, it's HIS work. Don't want to pay? don't download it.

You are not the one who makes the decision how a creator of a work should distribute that work, unless YOU created that work. Take GPL-ed software. That's IP, if you want it or not. Why? Because that's what the law says.

If I take a GPL-ed piece of software and embed it in my proprietary piece of software and sell it, slashdot and the rest of the open source world would be up in arms, like they have been in the past. That's exactly the same thing as what this composer did.

I.o.w.: it's exactly the same as with the GPL: a work created by a person has distribution rights, and the owner of the work decides which ones, no-one else. Don't like it? Don't use the work. It's that simple. Same with GPL-ed software.

Furthermore, this isn't about some RIAA douchebag bullying some teen. This is about some composer who rightfully wants freeloaders to pay for his work, the same as what a software engineer who wrote a piece of GPL licensed code wants: s/he licensed it as gpl-ed code so users of it in other pieces of code have to follow the rules: it's not their code, they have to follow the rules what the OWNER of the code has stated.

The 'brenna' person is really not that bright. The claim that people can't afford expensive sheet music and really need it because they otherwise will never have a chance in the profession they've chosen is utterly lame. Not only does the composer show that the sheetmusic costs 4$ (which is on par with a starbucks latte in some cities) but what does this brenna person tell the cashier at the local grocery store? "Please give me this food for free, I can't otherwise make a living in this tough profession"? I don't think so.

This kind of border crap is something I want to avoid at all cost. Last time I entered the USA (through seattle airport) I was questioned 10 times (TEN TIMES) what my business was there. And not by polite people who were friendly, no, by soldiers with M16's.

Why would anyone voluntarily want to go through all that?

At least in some European countries: if you file a patent of an idea it's thrown out without being looked at, you have to file a patent of an application of the idea.

To me these 'patents' are nothing more than results of brainstorms which were then patented in case someone else created the idea in real life.

The research on software for multi-core/cpu computers wasn't stopped once people thought their desktops were fast enough, it's been continued for decades and the results have lead to more and more efficient servers. The point is that the PC, the desktop/laptop computer isn't setup as a server with multiple cpu's, shared memory and what not, and in there lies the problem. Not the research, not the software design principles, not the lack of research in languages.

The 'n' stands for 'Not' and the 'o' stands for 'Only', so it's wrong to read it as NO SQL, it should be seen as Not Only SQL. I.o.w.: not a move away from sql, but exploring other options besides SQL

So, considering it's not entirely random, which browser is likely to land in the spot where most users will look first (in the middle) ?

As 5 choices are offered, in which order they are presented is not really that interesting. What's interesting is how users will pick their choice: if the vast majority will pick the 3rd one (middle) because they don't have time / want to read all the choices' options, it's more interesting which browser that will be.

Unfortunately, unless we know what kind of user patterns are likely, we can't really judge the numbers. For example if it was the most less likely that a user would pick the most right one from a set of 5 characters on screen, MS would put its biggest competitor there. And they don't see FF as their competitor, but google.

if you never use the same random number twice. Sorting fails because if two or more elements have the same 'random' number assigned to them, they won't switch places compared to the other elements compared to whatever numbers the rest has. This means that it's less optimal.

So calling sorting a non-optimal randomization technique isn't always valid: assigning unique random numbers to the elements does work.

I mean, he needs to block the HV correcting the tables, and presses a button to do that. But... that requires serious timing, as the call is made and directly after that he has to block the memory access with the pulse. To me this seems impossible to do, or he can start jamming the signal BEFORE the call is made, but that would potentially ruin the call in the first place.

Taking the risk of developing a new technology is thus incentivized because you can be assured that your product won't be ripped off and sold for cheap, preventing you from making any profit (or just breaking even) off of what could have been a potentially expensive period of R&D beforehand. That's why it makes sense to have patents

In theory that sounds great. In practice however, the competitor can rip your innovation easily by building it a bit different and patent that too (as it's not 'the same'). The result is 2 patents for practically the same thing. If more competitors do that, we end up with a lot of patents for the same thing and nightmares waiting to happen.

In theory the competitors have to license the technology patent by the inventor. In practice they don't want to pay and try to work around it. If by patenting your own 'slightly different' approach is possible, they'll do it.

So in practice what you said is not going to work. True, the inventor likely has more costs than the 'me-too' product producer but they won't gain it back because the competition won't license their tech.

As showing a nipple or add nudity to a game will definitely make it be rated A for adult only and thus not sellable.

For the people who think this footage is not something to argue about because it's a 'game', consider a game where you have to shove as much jews as possible in a gas chamber. Yes, horrific and the lowest possible taste possible, but it's for the sake of the argument: it's then too just 'a game', however people will (and rightfully so) be horrified and declare it unacceptable.

What I then wonder is: why is this 'a game' and 'fantasy', and another example 'unacceptable' ?