Yeah -- but the simple fact that we're yak-ing here, on a site like Techdirt, rather than playing the latest hot game that requires a graphics card more powerful (and more expensive) all by itself than the typical user's computer, is probably taken as a sign that our opinions (and gaming tastes) aren't really worth considering.
the Techdirt forum/comments board *desperately needs* another option/button in addition to "insightful" and "funny" -- namely "unintentionally funny" (or maybe just "unintentionally", as I suppose that there are occasionally "unintentionally insightful" comments, as well).
Sure... Remember, Microsoft wielded its market position to force the OEMs to adopt UEFI and Secure Boot, in the first place.
And now Microsoft is going the extra mile to "relax" the UEFI/Secure Boot requirement so that it's up to the OEM whether or not UEFI/Secure Boot is implemented properly -- or merely well enough to run Windows, but prevent the user (a.k.a. owner) from running some competing operating system on their own hardware.
(They tried to do this with Windows 8, but there was enough blow-back that Microsoft made a tactical retreat, required a proper implementation (at least officially -- in practice, deficient implementations didn't hinder the granting of Microsoft certification or participation in Windows 8 Logo "co-marketing" programs.)
Not so much UEFI, but the UEFI Secure Boot module, which under Microsoft's currently proposed Windows 10 Hardware Certification requirements, will let the OEM decide whether the hardware's owner is allowed to decide what operating system shall be permitted to run on that computer. And also, of course, that decision will be formally/theoretically out of Microsoft's hands, and *entirely* up to the OEM (yeah, suuuuure).
The cards sold do have the full 4GB of memory. Due to an odd structure of the crossbar, only 3.5GB of that gets full bandwidth. The driver software uses the odd 0.5GB for structures that aren't accessed as frequently.
That's not an entirely exculpatory clarification... In other words a half GB was only partially usable. If I bought a house advertised to have four bathrooms -- but one of those bathrooms turned out to be just an outhouse in the back garden, I'd feel quite put upon.
"That is not the normal way government works. Sadly, in my experience, it isn't whether you're excellent work is on time, but whether you sit in your desk during your scheduled "duty" day and look busy. I've seen people read the newspaper all day, but so long as they looked like they were doing work, they were good. "
Plenty of that in the private sector, too, actually. It's not even just a "white collar" problem.
>> Copyright should be a flat number of years and not depend on death. Really, 50 years is plenty.
> Agreed on the flat rate, disagree on the duration. To me, based upon what's shown in the article above, rolling copyright back to a 14+14, or perhaps 26+26, would seem to be plenty. The creator gets the bulk of their sales in that period, and by the time re-registration comes around, their profits from their creation isn't likely to be worth the effort to bother with, at which point the public would get their half of the bargain fulfilled.
Indeed -- 14 + 14 or 28 + 28 was deemed quite sufficient in the Age of Steam, when everything was shipped by horse powered cartage, steam-powered rail, steam or sail powered ships, or possibly transmitted by telegraph.
So one would expect that in today's world, with our vastly improved transportation, communications and distribution (not to mention advertising, payment and banking) infrastructure, costs and reasonable profits should be realized far more quickly and easily than ever before.