Last week my computer stopped booting. I didn't get around to looking at it until a few days ago because I had visitors over from the UK. Not just that, it is Christmas, and the last thing you want to be doing on your Christmas break is to be fixing computers.

I spent an hour or two playing with bits and pieces to try and determine the error. The problem was that the third DIMM slot on my motherboard (which, incidentally, has been a bit of a nightmare since I bought it) is dodgey. I removed a 512MB RAM stick from the offending slot over to slot two and the machine started to come alive again. I was pretty happy about this, despite the reduction in RAM speed due to the configuration, since I didn't need to buy anything to make it work again!

So I left the machine for a couple of days again as I was happy with what I achieved. But today, because the study was in a bit of a state due to the bits of computers, manuals, and various other things I'd strewn around the room while investigating, I thought I'd finalise everything and tidy up.

Since my computer case was open, I thought I'd do a bit of housekeeping. I wasn't really happy with the way it was laid out inside so I thought I'd tidy that up a bit first. I removed my WLAN card because it was flaky at best in 64-bit, and I'd had enough of the lag spikes (time to go back to cabled LAN). I moved my video card to a different slot to create a bit more space between it and my HSF (which is awesome, and does a great job even if it is a behemoth!). I also adjusted the fans a bit, cleaned up a lot of the dust, and moved a few of the cables around to improve air-flow.

So with all that done, I fired up the machine.

.. and got nothing. Shit.

The investigation started again. I thought that I'd go right for the previous culprit and rip out the RAM stick that I'd moved to see if that would resolve the problem. Thankfully, it did. So right now I'm running on 1/2GB RAM, not ideal to say the least but the machine is booting which is a lot better than it not.

The machine booted, and up came windows. It was at this point that I remember it telling me that a few days back it wanted me to reactivate Windows because of a substantial change in hardware. Of course, I ignored this stupid box because at the time I hadn't changed anything. I'd moved a RAM stick!

But today, it greeted me again. This time the message was different. In essense, my 3-day "window" of reactivation had expired, and I was being forced to reactivate it now. And I do mean now. Now as in right now before I was allowed to log on. Oh, but there's a problem here you see, because prior to logging on, there's no network connection. So when you try and activate Windows before logging on, it can't activate over the Interweb because it can't get to it. Of course, the activation fails. But does it let me log in? No. What does it do? I ties itself into an infinite loop of ...

1. Try to log in.
2. Fail because it's not activated.
3. Try to activate.
4. Fail to activate because it's not logged in and hence can't connect.
5. Goto step 1.

Not happy. Not happy at all. Not only had I not changed any hardware in the system (all I'd done is move it around, and remove a WLAN card) to force the reactivation, I am now stuck with a machine that won't let me log in. Nice eh?

Here's a nice little side-note for the Linux fanboys (yes, you know who you are). For yonks, a slight modification in anything to do with the video hardware in my machine would result in my linux graphics setup shitting itself. I'd then have to spend a chunk of the day trying to get it to work again with my dual-screen setup. But not this time. I'd mucked around with everything inside the machine, and what happened when I booted Linux??

Wait for it... WAIT FOR IT!

Nothing. It booted as if nothing had changed. Video settings were the same. Dual-screen worked. I sat here a little stunned for a while and I was brought back from my daze by the little blinking icon in the system tray telling me that I had updates to download. The network had connected, and everything was sweet.

See that Microsoft? Right there. That is what should happen. Nothing more, nothing less. When I reboot after a hardware change, I expect you to continue as if nothing had happened. I expect the network to connect without me dicking with it. I expect a nice little "Hello OJ, you legend, how else can I make your life easy today?"

So hats off to you LinuxMint. You made my day! Now, if only you hadn't borked my Firefox install Time to update you to the last version me thinks, and give you a bit of the love and attention that you deserve.

As a final note, it looks like I'm going to have to buy some new RAM, and while I'm there I'm going to ditch this UK keyboard as it has been driving me nuts for the last year and half. Time to get back to the Aussie (some might say US) layout.

I have bitched in the past about how activation is a pain in the neck. But that example is nothing like what 2K Games have recently inflicted on the buyers of their latest creation, Bioshock. Rather than throw a few links to a bzillion blog and forum posts that have covered it already, let me just give you the short version:

1. Bioshock comes with SecuROM.
2. It requires online activation before it can be played.
3. It can only be activated twice.

On the surface this might not sound so bad, but when you think about it a little deeper it becomes obvious why this is such a pain in the arse.

SecuROM has a bit of a reputation amongst gamers, and not a good one at that. Most people who fork out the dollar to purchase a game don't want to be harassed afterwards. SecureROM does a good job of exactly that - harasssing. It usually requires you to insert the CD/DVD of the title while you play it. Again, this isn't a biggie for most people. But for a lot of gamers, changing CDs and DVDs constantly is annoying. I'd go as far as to say that it shits them up the wall! (yup, that one's for you, Vorlath, if you're reading ). If you buy the game legally, and you install the game legally, you should be allowed to play it legally without having to muck around with the discs.

Activation of games is fairly commonplace these days, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to enforce it on the buyer. In the case of Bioshock, the SecuROM activation does some sort of hashing of your hardware and operating system information before passing it to the Mothership for archiving. If you install it on another machine, the process happens again. Each time your hardware or operating system changes, you end up with a new "fingerprint". According to 2K Games, you're allowed two of these "fingerprints" against a given serial number and that's it. Do you think that's reasonable?

Before giving your answer, make sure you consider all the possible scenarios that might result in the need for reinstallation. Such as ...

• ... Windows biting the dust due to malware.
• ... hardware biting the dust for any reason.
• ... the need to put the game on a different machine which has higher specifications and hence can provide a more enjoyable gaming experience.
• ... the game refusing to run on a certain version of Windows (cough Vista cough).

There are probably more reasons as well.

2K Games are saying that it's possible to uninstall the game before reinstalling on another machine and everything will continue to work fine. That's all well and good so long as you can uninstall the game. What happens if your machine is fried? Fat chance of uninstalling a game from a hard disk that burnt to a cinder. Good luck removing software from a machine that's been trashed by some nast virus. If any of the above does happen to you, then you're in for a rough ride convincing the support team to allow you to reinstall past your 2-installation limit.

I'm one of those people who frequently rebuilds their machine. When I do, I don't uninstall every bit of software before wiping and starting again. Usually the disks are repartitioned and the OS is reinstalled. I don't think twice about it. I don't think I'm the only one who would end up suffering because I forgot to uninstall a game that I know I have the original discs for.

Let's consider the long term issues that might arise from a mechansim like this. What happens when 2K decide that they've had enough of supporting Bioshock, and users require help with their activation? Simple: the users are left high and dry.

If you think buying a copy of the game through Steam is going circumvent this level of protection, think again. Steam not only has its own security in place to prevent piracy, but it also delivers the SecuROM anti-piracy gizmos that you get in the boxed version. So you're not safe.

There are already reports of people in strife due to this stupid level of control. Legal users of the software are unable to play the game because they've been forced to reinstall operating systems, or try on different machines because of the hardware requirements of the game. This is just crap. If you buy the software, it shouldn't come with a stack of crap which prevents you from being able to use whenever and wherever you want.

What makes this worse is that those people who do pirate software do not have to put up with this kind of crap! They download, install and play. That's it. No tales of woe. No activation issues. No concern of not being able to reinstall on a beefier machine. Nothing. The pirate is the winner, not the legal consumer.

I take my hat off to 2K for being monumentally stupid. You've tarnished an arguably amazing game with your stupid anti-piracy antics. You've also managed to piss off half of the game playing population...

.. and that's before we take into account the widescreen issue.

Edit: Have a read of this, this and this if you want to see what other people are saying.

1. How would you feel if TV channels changed automatically because you weren't paying attention to the ads?
2. Would you like it if your newspaper closed by itself because you were reading the articles but skipping over the classifieds?
3. How happy would you be if you were kicked out of a cinema for not watching the latest and greatest in Val Morgan Cinema Advertising?
4. Would you be happy if you weren't allowed to walk into a shop unless you HAD to buy something?

If you're anything like me, you'd be pretty pissed off about it. The scary thing is that this kind of thing is already happening on the web.

Quite a few news sites (such as Slashdot) have posted a story regarding websites that attempt to prevent the viewer from accessing its content should they be using the Firefox browser. While this has got my back up a little, I'm not going to rant and rave about why it's bad. Instead, I'm going to rant and rave about why it's stupid.

Before you read on, make sure you take a look at this site, as it's the location that your browser is redirected to when Firefox is detected. Got the picture? OK, read on.

Let's start by picking on some of the things that are mentioned on that site...

Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers.

I'm no expert in the legalities of web content and how it should be viewed. However, this claim doesn't sound valid to me.

Consider the case where someone is using a text-based browser (such as Lynx) to view a page which contains picture advertisements. Are they infringing the rights of the page author because they're unable to see the ads? Is Lynx also a candidate for blocking?

Consider another case where a visually impaired person is using a screen reader or a custom style-sheet that either rearranges the contents of the site, or removes everything but the text. Is this person also a potential infringer because they too aren't consuming the ads?

Next up...

Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads. Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing. Millions of hard working people are being robbed of their time and effort by this type of software.

I'm not sure I agree with the meaning behind this.

Sites that provide quality content tend not to be smothered in ads (of course, this is subjective ).

Sites that exist in order to provide any content in exchange for displaying ads are behaving as though their content is subscription-based. "Watch our ads or get no content". How is that different to subscribing (other than you're paying with time instead of cash)? These are the kind of sites I would prefer to avoid, and hence would be happy to be redirected

The word "stealing" is just way over the top. In my view, unwanted ads chews up valuable bandwidth which I am paying for. So I could argue that they're stealing bandwidth from me! My argument is only almost as ludicrous as theirs. Blocking ads is NOT stealing.

The implication that people are being robbed is also a joke. Those people who view sites using an ad-blocker are the kind of people who wouldn't click on ads anyway, so the net effect is the same. Pushing viewers away just results in more traffic for a site's competitors.

There are a few more things mentioned on the site that are easy to pick at, but the last thing I want to focus on is this...

If you are offended by the Mozilla Corporation's endorsement of dishonesty please contact the Mozilla Foundation and ask them to stop empowering internet theft.

This is just laughable. Mozilla who release high-quality, free software to the masses? Mozilla who have an open-source model of software development? They're endorsing dishonesty?! I don't think so. They're endorsing a user's right to view content on their own computer in the way they want to view it.

Advertisers don't seem to understand that part of the reason people have ad blockers installed is because of the extremely obtrusive ways in which they throw ads in our faces in the first place. Lots of sites have scripts that fire off when ANY part of the site is clicked (even blank space) resulting in an advertisment being loaded, or a popup ad. Stacks of sites have more ads than content, and it's hard to find the content amongst the ads. Lots of sites seem to pollute their content with ads making it hard to read. The whole experience of using those sites is just painful, which is a large part of the reason why people use ad blockers.

In short, the things that make this whole exercise incredibly stupid are:

1. Firefox also has an addon called User Agent Switcher, which can be used to make Firefox look like another browser as far as the website is concerned.
2. The Opera browser also has an ad-blocking feature. So why isn't this also being blocked?
3. Firefox users are known to click on ads less than any other user. Stats show that they are less click-happy than the idiots, I mean users, of IE.
4. It's possible to install an ad-blocker for Internet Explorer.
5. Users who are savvy enough to use ad blockers will be savvy enough to change their user-agent.
6. Sites may feel like they can send ads down the pipe, but the viewer is not under any obligation to view it.
7. Sites do not have to right to dicate how content is viewed by the client.
8. Discriminating against browser users is bad for business (regardless of the browser).

This is quite an interesting issue. Digg are obviously in a position where they have to remove anything that may be considered an infringment of copyright, otherwise they could be subject to hefty lawsuits which could result in the site being closed (have a read of this for a bit more information), but by the same token it almost goes against their whole business idea - sharing information that people want to have shared in a democratic fashion.

At the end of the day, the encryption key is just a bunch of numbers, and most people have a problem with the idea that a bunch of numbers can be patented/copyrighted. I have to say that I agree with them. A number is a number, it exists in so many forms, and can have so many meanings. Trying to prevent people from posting these numbers is a waste of time. There are some smart people out there using some pretty funny and clever ways to post the number without actually stating that the number is the encryption key - which is perfectly legal.

Regardless of the politics, the cat is out of the bag. And from this point on, the 'Net community will no doubt be pushing to spread this number as far and as wide as possible.

What are your thoughts on this?

Edit: Kaz just sent me this awesome link. I wonder if they'd have the power to rip the shirt off your back?!

Edit 2: So, the masses have been heard! Digg has changed its tune and will no longer be attempting to stop said key being shared. Hats off to them for taking a stance. The thing is, whether they try to stop it or not, the encryption key will not be removed from the web - it's out there, and people won't let it be brushed under the carpet.

Edit 3: Couldn't resist posting this, it's bloody awesome (I'm talking about the pic).

The first thing was the news that there's a class action lawsuit against Nintendo due to the apparently insufficient quality of the straps that hold the Wiimote on the wrist. After I first read this I decided to do a bit of research into the cases where people had lost their grip, snapped the band and witnessed the Wiimote flying through the end and breaking either something expensive, or someone's face (or both!). In every case, the person's actions have been incredibly excessive. Sure, the Wiimote no doubt gets you going. It's easy to get caught up in the moment and let excitement get the better of you. But to swing that controller that hard while expecting it to stay in your hand makes you (the user) a complete tool. Instead of just easing up a little bit and admitting that they've gone over the top, the users are now saying that it's Nintendos fault, and in the classic American tradition, they're suing.

The second thing that's got to me is the new Aussie rule that states that you're no longer allowed to link to copyrighted material. I'm not sure how broad that rule actually is, but it does sound like you could end up with someone suing you for linking to their blog post, their home-made video, or whatever it is that they've put online - even if you've helped increase the traffic to the site. I'd have sent you a link to the original SMH article, but I wasn't sure if that was legal. Let's be honest, if the rule is that broad and you can't even point people at a newspaper article, the world is going nuts. The original idea of hypertext linking is now being threatened - as you're no longer allowed to use them! Sure, link to pages in your own site, link to Google, and tell them what to search for. That should be ok. But direct linking looks to be a no-no.

Total and utter crap. The world is going nuts! If we keep going at this rate it's going to become illegal to do anything other than read emails - and considering the amount of SPAM that's buzzing around the Internet the value of that doesn't look too good. We're going to have to nip this shit in the bud before it goes too far. Not only will it stop the open communication and information sharing mechanism that the world is, but the threat of being sued will prevent people from innovating - that's not the kind of world I want to live in.

I have no reason to find his claims outrageous, since he's quite clearly experienced in this area (he was 15 when he cracked CSS after all), so it looks like Apple have got themselves an issue to deal with. It'll be interesting to see if they take steps to stop him and his new DoubleTwist venture from taking off, or releasing any information/software pertaining to the crack.

Check out this SMH article for a bit more info.

I'm going to be getting married pretty soon, and as a result my fiance and I are both trying to finalise arrangements for the wedding. One of the things that we're trying to get right is the music that we want to have playing at various points, and over the weekend we spent a bit of time going over quite a few options. After pretty lengthy discussions (which aren't yet over) we got together a shortlist of albums with songs that we would like to have played. In order to make our lives a lot easier, we wanted to have the songs ripped to my PC so we could play with the order of songs in playlists to get the right feel/flow.

This is where the pain started. Most of the CDs ripped perfectly fine to MP3 using CDex and the LAME encoder that comes with it. There were a couple of CDs, however, that just didn't want to behave. Out of the two CDs that didn't want to play nice, I managed to get one of them to rip, but the second just refused to work. I think I might know how to solve the problem after doing a bit of research, but this obviously brought my thoughts on DRM to the front of my mind - which is why I'm posting.

So why do we have DRM? Why is it being rammed down our throats every time we buy a new CD? The answer is simple: the music production companies feel that they need to have some form of mechanism in place to prevent music from being ripped and shared across the world by pirates. While this is a knoble cause, it has nasty effects on those people who do pay for their music.

One of those effects is that users are unable to play the music on their MP3 player. It makes me wonder what the point is of having an iPod or Network Walkman when you can't rip CDs to be able to put the content on them anyway? What happens if I don't own a normal standalone CD player, but instead only have an MP3 player and my computer which I use for the transfer? In short: I'm screwed.

I feel that while there is a need to stop the pirating of music content, there is no way that legitimate consumers of music should suffer as a result of the extremely crap mechanisms that are currently in place. The worst of the crap mechanisms out there is one that Sony has used. Not only does it go out of its way to hide itself so that you don't even know it's installed, it even goes as far as to provide a mechanism for other programs to hide themselves. This has been exploited already by malware, and Sony have copped a bit of a hiding as a result.

Has this kind of thing made any difference? No not really. Companies are still putting mechanisms in place to stop people ripping their music. I'm bloody sick of it.

Let's be honest. If you really want to rip music, you will find a way. There's a stack of information out there which will cover almost any scenario well enough to point you in the right direction. What does this mean to the average user? Well, those people who do buy their music are more likely to not know where to look to find this information out. Those people who deliberately pirate music are the kinds of people who not only know how to get round most copy-protection mechanisms, but are likely to circumvent them by themselves and let other people know how they did it.

The net effect is not a reduction in piracy. Instead it's the legitimate user who cops it. The pirates have it easy, as they always seem to be up to speed or one step ahead, and Joe Blow sits in front of his PC baffled and cursing his new purchase wishing he'd never wasted the money on the CD in the first place.

I personally feel that in the long run DRM mechanisms like this are going to prevent people from buying. If I find a CD that I want to buy, then I'll look for the information regarding the copy protection. If there is some in place, chances are I won't bother buying it.

When are the big companies going to wake up and stop slapping their clients with DRM software that does nothing but make their lives more difficult? We need more and more artists to get behind the consumer and stop the production companies from installing DRM on their albums. We should be free to play our purchased music on whatever the hell we want - and that includes PCs and MP3 players.