Slashdot Mirror
Apple's iTunes DRM Cracked?
joekra writes "The author of DeCSS is back in the spotlight with a new application called QTFairUse. The new application attempts to convert DRM'd AACs to non-DRM'd AACs on Windows machines. MacRumors has done some limited testing on it and has found it doesn't yet work as advertised... but they do offer a look into how it works."
I got a first post A failure is below me My life is complet
Now if there just was a way to copy shared iTunes 4.0.1 music.
Actually, you didn't need to have Windows present at all. You could just install "OS/2 for Windows" by itself and you'd have a pure 32-bit OS/2 system. And because it didn't have Windows, it was fast!
It pissed us off royally in Boca that IBM never advertised this.
Oh, since I can say this with it being somewhat on topic, OS/2 wasn't being ported to PPC. We were re-writing the kernel. It was based on the Berkeley Mach Kernel.
I've seen posts in the past stating this and I wasn't able to post in time to dispute it.
There is no spoon or sig.
..check out classical music fan and Usenet kook David Tholen:
e =U TF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=bpiesb%24r1p%241%40online.de &prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe% 3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.music.classical
(Previously the holder of the Internet Kook Of The Month award!)
He hangs out in rec.music.classical, although he's also active on OS/2 newsgroups.
He writes these crazy lists of people he considers are antagonistic towards him, although even asking him a single, simple question can get you added to the list. Check it out:
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&i
or just search rec.music.classical for the word `antagonist`.
He's inspired the following fan site:
http://members.tripod.com/~tholen_of_borg/
Yep.
And under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (entered in force 1994, and to which the United Kingdom is a party as of 1997), as a fixed location man-made structure within the 12 nautical mile territorial waters and 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone of the United Kingdom, Sealand is without question under the soverign jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
You can't beat an army with a stronger will and with greater numbers. It's why the US lost in Vietnam and why things will always be cracked. You can't beat an army of pirates (some perhaps academics) willing to crack for free.
Stop it. I know this article isn't about this, and sure this may be offtopic, but the bullshit has to stop.
The US pulled out of Vietnam because eventually most of the country realized that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Second, our politicians kept the military leaders in shackles; "You can bomb here, but don't bomb there", as a result the NVA moved their valuable hardware to "there"; "engage these guys, but not those guys" as a result "these guys" made themselves look like "those guys".
We had a better trained, better equipped Army, as evidenced by the fact that the North Vietnamese lost many, MANY more soldiers in combat than the US did. There is no question that the US Army could have and in fact should have won the day, they just weren't allowed to do their job.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
gotta check links before u mod, mods
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
Yes this is OT but this guy is 100% right. If we had been allowed to go in and kick their ass without these stupid restrictions, we would have done so.
We lost because the majority of the citizens of vietname were against us. So we could have killed the majority of the population, which would have looked really bad, or pulled out. Even if we took the "shackles" off the military we coulnd't have won without commiting genocide. The majority of the citizens of vietnam wanted a communist leader and were going to elect one in the elections we agreed to allow after vietnam kicked the french out. We went in to stop democracy from happening which will always fail in the long run unless you wipe out most of the population.
What's still at question though is whether Sealand is an independant state. No other country has actually recognised it as such yet, instead UK and others have taken to ignoring the matter really, which 'Prince' Roy Bates has taken to mean it's his.
Should UK plc want it back, I'm sure they could, but whether they can be bothered is a different matter.
Who won? The battle is not always to the strongest, nor the race to the swiftest.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
We lost because the majority of the citizens of vietname were against us.
Oh, that's so wrong. I left Saigon in April, 1975, with my family. I think I know a little about what things were like there. The South Vietnamese people hated the communists and everything they stood for. We loved having the Americans there, until the two-faced American government turned their backs on us to placate the hippies.
Don't talk about what the majority wanted unless you were there. You have no idea.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. There was a *reason* the military was limited with respect to the targets they could pursue. That reason was escalation. There were some serious hawks then (as there are now) and their ways may have blinded them to the greater implications of their desires/actions. No one, NO ONE was prepared for a war that pulled in China or the Soviets.
The reason for restraint then is the same reason we show it today. Yes, in Iraq and in the wider War we show a degree restraint. Should the United States go marching around using military force to topple aggressive and oppressive regimes we risk a wider conflict with fewer allies (which, like it or not, we need - maybe not for substantial military support but definitely for logistical support). Iraq was the most cost effective. While a huge potential victory in North Korea if we did this we face with greater uncertainty with the possibility of a nuclear conflict - something which is unacceptable. Iran isn't hostile enough (yet) to be worth the trouble. The gain is too small.
All this said Vietnam happened that way it did for a reason. And we lost because we made mistakes and miscalculations. Period.
sig
We had a better trained, better equipped Army, as evidenced by the fact that the North Vietnamese lost many, MANY more soldiers in combat than the US did. There is no question that the US Army could have and in fact should have won the day, they just weren't allowed to do their job.
Fine point. The United States could have militarily defeated the Viet-cong easily. This is true.
However, the United States entered Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism. In short, to preserve South Vietnam as a democratic State embracing the capitalist system. The rules and restrictions placed on the army were to ensure that there was a South Vietnam left to become that State.
So even had those limitations been absent the US would still have emerged the looser in the Vietnam War. Why? Because there were two possible outcomes to that war.
1 - The US goes home and lets the country unite under a communist government.
2 - The US stays and fights, reducing the entire place to a smoldering mass of ash and chared jungle... not communism, true, but not democratic capitalism either.
The US lost in Vietnam not because it was outgunned, out clevered, or out fought, but because it set out to do force an entire country to do something that country didn't want to do. Oh... that and the Chinese got involved.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Precisely? Precisely wrong.
Sea claims are secondary to and dependent on land territorial claims. The territorial sea rule is 12 nautical miles or halfway to the nearest land claimed by another power (approximately, the law is somewhat more complex); the Exclusive Economic Zone and seabed claims are similarly 200 nm or halfway to the nearest land claimed by another power. Since Jersey is land under british rule, France's territorial sea and EEZ end halfway to Jersey.
Permanent man-made structures in the sea, no matter who built them or when, however, do not qualify for territorial claims, no matter who mades the claim or when. They are always under the soverign jurisdiction of the entity that has the claim to the seabed they are anchored in. You only get seabed claims if you control land; artificial structures don't get any.
Period, end of story, that's international law. Sealand's claim is invalid, and it doesn't matter when they made it. It wouldn't matter if the French claimed and occupied the platform in 1967 or 1067, as an artificial structure where it is, it is British territory now. There is no question as to its status.
The Convention clearly states that permanent artificial structures are not a valid basis for territorial claims. Sealand is an artifical structure; therefore its claim is invalid, no matter when it was built or when the claim was issued.
Therefore, Prince Roy's claims are not valid. As his claims are invalid, and the platform is within the territorial sea of Britain, it is under British jurisdiction. Period.
OTOH, I'd be willing to bet this 'crack' came as a result of insider help. Information, after all, wants to be free...
sorry to burst your bubble, and i'm sure you meant no disrespect to the troops, because I have lots of friends who fought in Vietnam, but the will of the troops was fine. it was the political will. now, i'll grant you, by the 70's, everybody knew we had no intention (politically) of winning the damn thing, and since that traitorous bastard cronkite, and his buddies in the press, who reported tet as a huge VC win, when in fact, it was a huge US victory (keep in mind, we had a few hundred killed, the VC had 15,000 killed. general giap, the north's hero was fired) public sentiment turned. don't confuse the radical anti-war assholes. they represented a minority then, as they do now.
we "lost" in vietnam because the government never had any intention of winning. had we, we'd have finished the job in 6-12 months.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Don't worry, if this thing (= TCPA) comes, they will have each and every loophole covered.
I've read the TCPA/Palladium proposals, and the owner of the machine can always turn the TPM/nexus on or off. Sure, applications that require the TPM won't run when the TPM is turned off, but there will always be a Free operating system and Free applications that don't require the TPM. Or do you claim that communication with the Internet of the future will require the TPM to be turned on?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Totally off-topic, but:
"You can't beat an army with a stronger
will and with greater numbers. It's why
the US lost in Vietnam..."
You missed the 70s, didn't you? I'll watch as your bad analogy and the distinct lack of will of the American people in Vietnam bites you on the ass.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Fine point. The United States could have militarily defeated the Viet-cong easily. This is true.
And in fact, is what happened. The Viet Cong were soundly defeated after a couple of disasterous (for them) offensives that got the kind of publicity stateside that some of the current incidents in Iraq are getting (ie, distorted).
South Vietnam was defeated -- after most of the US forces had been pulled out and military aid severely cut back -- by the regular North Vietnamese Army (not the guerilla Viet Cong) backed by one of the largest tank assaults in the (until then) history of warfare (thanks to external suppliers).
-- Alastair
The is a two word argument that refutes all of your points soundly. South Korea.
"A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
The Viet Cong were finished as a fighting force after Tet. In the two years it took the Vietnamese to rebuild their fighting forces, most VC units were replaced with regular NVA. By 1970, it was the U.S. versus the NVA.
We lost Vietnam because it was never a primarily military conquest, but a political one. All the Vietnamese needed to do to win was outlive us. They survived, the Chinese, the Japanese and the French. We were next. Unless we were willing to kill millions upon millions of Vietnamese, there was no way out other than defeat.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Traitorous bastard Cronkite?
Slashdot is getting very weird. The astro turf is getting so high it's blocking out the sun.
>> You can't beat an army with a stronger will and with greater numbers. It's why the US lost in Vietnam and why things will always be cracked. You can't beat an army of pirates (some perhaps academics) willing to crack for free.
What? Surely the US could have defeated Vietnam had they dropped a whole bunch of hydrogen bombs on the country. You haven't spoken about objective, yet.
Except the South Korean people feared Communism and didn't want to be invaded by the North. The South Vietnimese didn't have a real problem with the whole "Red" thing.