Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Re:Nor is HDCP 2.2 (Score 1) 115

No for the majority of people it made no difference at all because at the first error they just jumped online and pirated the content.

No they didn't. The majority of people in the world do not pirate stuff. They do not have torrent software loaded. If they did then all forms of DRM would have died out years ago. DRM works because, as you said:

the majority of consumers do the "approved thing" with their copy

You never hear about the people who come up against the limits of DRM and simply accept it because they don't jump online to complain. If you only see the people who complain (which by definition you do) then you are seeing a skewed picture of the situation.

So I stand by my original statement that for the majority of people, the removal of DRM made little to no difference at all.

Comment Re:Nor is HDCP 2.2 (Score 0) 115

Ecept that's crap. Just about everything is freely available on the Pirate Bay. Everything is released on DVD still which while technically hsa DRM, it's so thoroughly hacked that it may as well not have.

The people who download stuff from the pirate bay are not consumers, they are pirates. The argument about DRM does not apply to them because they don't ever use DRM-encumbered media. DRM is not designed to stop the people who identify themselves as pirates; it is to prevent those people who would balk at being called that (and wouldn't dream of loading torrent software) but who see no problems with copying an album or a movie to give to a friend. Morals are not absolute. While there is no difference in downloading something from the Pirate Bay and being handed a CD from a friend to rip onto your computer, there are people who see this as two different moral levels. The former is seen as stealing, while the latter is legitimate because it's just their friend's CD.

My point has always been that people will accept DRM if it is not onerous (that is, as long as they don't have to do anything for their media to play like connecting to the Internet when there is no other reason for them to have to do this). Equally, the general public will not copy something to give to a friend if it seems onerous or if there is the vague idea that somehow there duplication might be detectable. I think that the old days of handing around physical media made casual copying much more acceptable because it felt like you were lending something physical to someone even though they got to keep the contents of that physical media.

With digital files it's a bit different, especially if you have client software like iTunes to manage it. I asked my mother-in-law (who regularly buys music from the iTunes store) whether she thought she could give a copy of an album to someone and she had no idea. The concept of ownership is blurred when the music is attached to accounts and accessed with special software. It didn't occur to her that the music had a physical form (as a file) so she has never once thought about being able to duplicate any music, despite her and my wife regularly sharing CDs with each other.

Like a lot of people, she doesn't care if her music and TV shows have DRM on them; ll she wants is to be able to play them. And that was the entire point of my original post.

Comment Re:Nor is HDCP 2.2 (Score 1) 115

Between money or more money. Not making money or losing money.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

But it made it impossible (or at least extremely inconvenient) to move away from an Apple device. The market effects were obvious and was a huge part of the iPod's success and cost the consumers millions through lack of competition. The consumer might not have really understood, but they knew it worked on Apple and didn't work anywhere else.

That is correct, but as you say the consumer didn't understand and in most cases didn't care because they simply didn't ever try to move away from the Appleverse.

They don't notice it because what millions and millions of people download have DRM removed.

No, they didn't notice the removal of DRM because they dutifully installed iTunes and never tried anything that would trigger the rights management. People were far more likely want to write their music to CD format than copy it to a non-Apple brand of player and that was still supported.

True, but you were the one claiming that publishers wouldn't publish without DRM.

No, I never claimed that. It only requires one publisher to decide not to release one song/movie in a DRM-free digital format for my statement to be true. My point has always been about the public's willingness to accept DRM that isn't onerous. If they have to connect to the Internet for the sole purpose of playing a local file then they will get annoyed. But if they package the DRM in a way that seems like a benefit to the consumer (or if it is effectively invisible like the iTunes DRM) then the consumer doesn't care. No amounts of arguments about the pros and cons (however correct they are and however much I personally agree with them) will change the my point about consumer attitudes. If the consumer can't play their media because of onerous DRM them they will be pissed off. But if we pulled all support for DRM technologies and their media files stopped working then that is also an anti-consumer practice and will piss off the very consumers that you seek to protect.

Comment Re:Nor is HDCP 2.2 (Score 0) 115

I think you confused "not economically viable" with "profit maximizing".

I'm not confusing any terms, because it is not my decision to make. It is the publishers who make that decision.

And I'm sure you noticed how the music industry imploded after iTunes gave up the DRM. Oh wait, it didn't.

I also noticed that for the majority of people, the removal of DRM made little to no difference at all. That is because they made the protection as unobtrusive as possible. Yes, the protection did prevent you from moving your digital files around, but it didn't stop playing on the Apple devices or burning the tracks to an audio CD (up to 7 times).

We could easily drop the DRM-protection, ban DRM and go back to plain old copyright infringement without the world coming to an end.

We are not talking about the world coming to an end, we are talking about whether consumers are willing to accept DRM-encumbered media. Many people here may be opposed to using any protected video and music, and I'm one of those people (I still buy my music on CD & rip them, and I still hate iTunes because it prevents you from copying non-iTunes-store music from an iPhone if you don't have access to the original computer that copied them to the phone).

But we are in the minority. The majority of people in the world either don't notice DRM or they are accepting of it.

We could easily drop the DRM-protection, ban DRM and go back to plain old copyright infringement without the world coming to an end.

And DRM could stay as it is and the world won't come to an end.

Comment Re:Nor is HDCP 2.2 (Score 1, Insightful) 115

No. People want to play media. They have no desire whatsoever to have it "protected" against them.

People also would rather not pay for their media, so if they have to choose between protected content and no content at all (because the content providers think that it is not economically viable enough for them to release it DRM-free) then the consumer will choose the former option. And if the protection is implemented well so that it doesn't adversely affect the consumer then they probably wouldn't give a damn.

Comment Re:Atom is as strong as P4 (Score 1) 224

Adding cores is one of the main ways that modern CPUs achieve their high performance. Modern software and operating systems are written to take advantage of this by heavily making use of multiple threads. Sure you could switch off 3 of the cores to artificially get similar performance to a P4, but then you only have yourself to blame for poor performance.

So no, you don't get similar to a P4 with the new Atoms; you get the equivalent of four Pentium 4 CPUs in one chip. The single-threaded benchmark is of some importance, but fixating on it at the expense of the overall performance score ignores the fact that this is no longer the days of MS-DOS; we live with a system of numerous background processes and multi-threaded tasks.

Comment Re:If I just need that one app in Wine (Score 1) 224

I wouldn't expect many of those "other apps" to run terribly well on a $100 x86 PC. This is probably not something that will be a suitable gateway for all of those Windows legacy apps unless it's through running an RDP client.

Running something "not terribly well" is still better than not at all, which is the alternative if going with an ARM processor. And while many applications won't run well, many will run fine.

I do think that you may be underestimating how well this PC will run. While you wouldn't want to do highly complex stats jobs on it, it will be fine for applications that are more user-interface based (which tend to idle while waiting for user input). They will be especially fine for those legacy Windows apps that some companies have been running for years and just can't seem to shake off. At my company we have a program that started its life back on Windows 3.1. It runs like a champ on anything that you can buy today.

Comment Re:Atom is as strong as P4 (Score 1) 224

The truth: low performing, desk melting, battery chewing junk that I regret owning.

How long ago did you last buy an Atom-based system? While the CPUs have always been low-powered, the early units were encumbered with terrible supporting chipsets that offset the power savings. But the modern processors are not like that. My Atom notebook/tablet combo gets about 10 hours of battery life and runs very cool.

The processor used by the Kangaroo is a four-core, 2 Watt, 14 nm model. Since the term "low performing" is relative and subjective I can't address that claim, but these units will not melt the desk and will not chew your batteries. The Kangaroo gets a disappointing 4 hours of battery life, but that is probably due to using a small & cheap battery rather than the processor greedily gobbling up the power.

Comment Re:Atom is as strong as P4 (Score 1) 224

As I understand it, an Atom CPU roughly matches the performance of a Pentium 4 CPU clock for clock. This means an old application that runs well on a P4 will also run well on an Atom.

That is demonstrably wrong. Using the benchmark, Passmark, a 3GHz Pentium 4 has a CPU Mark of 358 while the previous -generation 1.6GHz Atom Z3795 scored 1684. The comparison site didn't have the Passmark of this newer Atom CPU, but the CPUs are similar enough.

Comment Re:Poor Mice (Score 2) 100

That rat just ate it's own shit and fucked it's mother in the cage. I guess we aren't more intelligent and superior?

There are websites that you can find to show that some humans do exactly the same sort of thing. On the other hand, mice don't watch reality TV shows so that's a win for them!

Comment Re:Some disabled people are going to be very sad (Score 5, Insightful) 51

Some disabled people are going to be very sad

If you are disabled enough to require voice control over your computer then you probably want to operate more than just Chrome and will have some more system-wide software in operation. It won't make much difference to them (in fact, it may be better as you don't have two different systems trying to listen to your voice).

Comment Re:Burden of proof. (Score 2) 73

Yeah, I've already heard from from my crunchy greenie friends about how this "proves" the value of traditional medicine. That one text mentions on herb that worked, and 1,999 texts listed herbs that didn't shows the exact opposite... completely escapes them.

To be fair, those traditional herbal medicines were not all supposed to be malaria cures specifically. In fact this particular herb was a general cure for fever.

From Artemisinin: Discovery from the Chinese Herbal Garden:
During their search, Youyou Tu and colleagues investigated more than 2,000 recipes of Chinese traditional herbs, compiling 640 recipes that might have some antimalarial activity.

Of course, traditional techniques for extracting the compound to make the medicine were still wrong though, so your friends who you are denigrating still don't have cause to celebrate. But traditional medicine is just an early version of modern medicine with just as sloppy scientific rigor as the doctors in the 60s who used to prescribe smoking to their patients. So there is no point feeling all high and mighty as our modern medicine can trace its roots back to a lot of leach-loving doctors.

Comment Re:What a BS Nobel (Score 2) 73

So she "discovers" something that was widely known for, what, 500 years? and she gets a nobel? WTF is this about?

It's about eliminating the other 1,999 herbs that were also "known" about. It's about applying the herb that had been traditionally used to treat generic fevers to now fight malaria. It's about isolating the compound in the herb (Artemisinin) and figuring the best way to extract it (which wasn't the method traditionally used).

"Everybody is talking about the weather but nobody does anything about it." -- Mark Twain