Slashdot Mirror


'DVD Jon' Breaks Google Video Lock

WillemdeMoor writes "Yahoo News runs a story on Jon Johansen, aka DVD Jon, cracking Google's in-browser video player. Addict3d.org has some more details, including links to Johansen's patch (Win32 executable) and Jon's blog entry at nanocrew.net."

384 comments

  1. whaaaaa? by Zone-MR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "'DVD Jon' Breaks Google Video Lock

    Johansen, also known as 'DVD Jon' for his work on decrypting DVD security codes, has created a patch for the Google Video Viewer--less than 24 hours after the search giant shipped the video playback plug-in, a tool based on the open-source VideoLAN media player.

    The patch, released on Johansen's 'So Sue Me' blog, effectively disables a modification Google made to the VideoLAN code to prevent users from playing videos that are not hosted on Google's servers."


    ROFLMAO!?! Ahahahahaha :p ... Talk about a sensational news article :)

    Jon made a modification to an OPEN SOURCE media player, removing a trivial protection, and Yahoo news posts a story about him cracking yet another protection mechanism, implying parallels with his past work. This news then spreads to Slashdot.

    Awww, come on... I've made countless little mods to open-source apps in order to get them to behave the way I'd like. I've never gotten news coverage for adding "//" before an 'if(condition)' statment.

    1. Re:whaaaaa? by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did you comply to the GPL and relase the source? :p

    2. Re:whaaaaa? by andersbergh · · Score: 1

      That was my reaction aswell, but whenever DVD-Jon does something, it has to be on the news or so.

    3. Re:whaaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      "I've made countless little mods to open-source apps in order to get them to behave the way I'd like. I've never gotten news coverage for adding "//" before an 'if(condition)' statment"

      Hi, I'm from Yahoo News. Please tell us more about this "//".

    4. Re:whaaaaa? by JuliusRV · · Score: 1

      Did you comply to the GPL and relase the source? He only needs to do so if he distributes the result.

    5. Re:whaaaaa? by djlowe · · Score: 4, Informative

      Per the GPL, if he's making the changes only for his own use, and not for distribution, then he doesn't have to.

    6. Re:whaaaaa? by justforaday · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hi, I'm from Yahoo News. Please tell us more about this "//".

      This is slashdot gawdammit! You're looking for slashslash ...

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    7. Re:whaaaaa? by Zone-MR · · Score: 5, Funny

      A little-known hacker secret known as "//" or comment sequence is being used to illegally remove protections in computer software

      "It's a nightmare for the industry, the // sequence is being used to defeat protections in hundreds of thousands of software programs, costing the industry trillions of dollars in lost revenue" said Robert Holleyman, president of the Washington-based Business Software Alliance (BSA).

      While Linus Trovalds confirmed that the // sequence may be a powerful tool for removing protections, he downplayed the threat, stating that only software for which the code is freely availble can be cracked using the method.

      Various anti-piracy groups are pressuring congress to pass an extention to the DMCA laws, which will effectively outlaw commenting out parts of computer code. Under the new law it will also be illegal to manufacture a computer keyboard with the forward slash '/' key.

    8. Re:whaaaaa? by Sketch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Jon made a modification to an OPEN SOURCE media player, removing a trivial protection, and Yahoo news posts a story about him cracking yet another protection mechanism, implying parallels with his past work. This news then spreads to Slashdot.

      Another potentially interesting way of putting this: Yahoo posts a news story about their biggest competitor's protection mechanism being broken less than 24 hours after release.

      Hmm...

      --
      -- OpenVerse Visual Chat: http://openverse.com
    9. Re:whaaaaa? by lord+sibn · · Score: 0

      That's absurd! The forward slash '/' key is totally innocuous. Keyboards will never again be made with the '//' key!

    10. Re:whaaaaa? by Alphabet+Pal · · Score: 5, Funny
      I've never gotten news coverage for adding "//" before an 'if(condition)' statment.

      Well, it's obvious that you "hackers" don't know what you're talking about. I tried using this so-called "hacker technique" to hack into a password protected website, but changing "iexplore.exe" to "//iexplore.exe" did nothing. I guess Microsoft has found a way to defeat this hacker exploit.

      --
      Because you can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter"
    11. Re:whaaaaa? by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yahoo news posts a story about him cracking yet another protection mechanism, implying parallels with his past work. This news then spreads to Slashdot.

      Funny, I found this via my Google homepage - top story, middle column

      Never even looked at Google video, never cared. For some reason I *need* to now. Good job Google.

    12. Re:whaaaaa? by xtracto · · Score: 2, Funny

      NOP
      NOP

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    13. Re:whaaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, it's obvious that you "hackers" don't know what you're talking about. I tried using this so-called "hacker technique" to hack into a password protected website, but changing "iexplore.exe" to "//iexplore.exe" did nothing. I guess Microsoft has found a way to defeat this hacker exploit.

      Microsoft doesn't have to do anything. Stupidity defeated you.

    14. Re:whaaaaa? by julesh · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're looking for slashslash ...

      Isn't slash slash stories where Hemos and CmdrTaco... well, I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

    15. Re:whaaaaa? by Momoru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BAH!!! Yahoo News is not a News Agency, cripes it just grabs a feed from the freakin' AP and Reuters, I can't believe how many posts like yours have been modded up! Yahoo creates no more original news content then Google does, its just wire feeds...except in Yahoo's case they actually host the context. It doesn't even give precedence to stories based on their own politics, it shows stories in order of popularity, cripes.

    16. Re:whaaaaa? by rajeshgoli · · Score: 1

      What did google put that code in for? Were they seriously thinking it would be a "protection mechanism" of some sort? That would mean the days of google are numbered!

      --
      http://www.rajeshgoli.com
    17. Re:whaaaaa? by jon1986 · · Score: 0

      DVD Jon is also a programmer for the VideoLAN project as mentionned in this page with the other devellopers http://www.videolan.org/team/ I am not surprised he did made the change since he has been coding on this project for a long time.

    18. Re:whaaaaa? by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      Awww, come on... I've made countless little mods to open-source apps in order to get them to behave the way I'd like. I've never gotten news coverage for adding "//" before an 'if(condition)' statment.

      That's because when you commented out the "if" line, you had extra "}"'s that prevented you from compiling. Had you also commented out *those*, you'd have been famous by now. :)

    19. Re:whaaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PROTECTION MECHANISM?

      Let me be the first to say : WHAT THE FUCK!??!!!ONEONEONE!

    20. Re:whaaaaa? by ded_guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Clever hackers are now avoiding detection by using the nearly undetectable /* */ sequence instead.

      --
      In the future, all spacecraft will be made of cheese.
    21. Re:whaaaaa? by Jerf · · Score: 2, Funny

      My source code is never able to acheive coherency, so it never lased in the first place, making "re"lasing impossible.

      (Mod hint: Physics joke.)

    22. Re:whaaaaa? by prionic6 · · Score: 1

      That's the reason why "{" should have a newline in front of it!

    23. Re:whaaaaa? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 0

      While Linus Trovalds confirmed

      No idea if you did that on purpose to mock Yahoo, but I'm going to pretend you did and say, "Well done, mate!"

    24. Re:whaaaaa? by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      Why do standards say "if () {" then?

    25. Re:whaaaaa? by SuperDJ · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's where I found mine too, I thought it was so funny that I took a screenshot.

      --
      RTJKJAS
    26. Re:whaaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, but it'll never happen.

    27. Re:whaaaaa? by akac · · Score: 1

      I hate that standard. I refuse to follow it. It makes it so much harder to read.

      I much prefer

      if (cond)
      {

      }

    28. Re:whaaaaa? by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      Why do you think Google released Google Earth yesterday? Everyone's going to be so busy playing with that, no one will have time to crack Google videos anymore...

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    29. Re:whaaaaa? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      What do standards matter on code that makes no difference to the resulting program, and that no-one needs to read?

    30. Re:whaaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      On recieving this news hackers have started using a faster method /**/. Security experts warn that this method, which may look more complicated than the currently know // exploit, is significantly faster. Some reports say that a hacker could remove thousands of lines of code in a mere second.

    31. Re:whaaaaa? by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Funny

      Go outside and wait until you see a plane fly overhead. See it? That's how far the joke went over your head.

    32. Re:whaaaaa? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Ditto, unless it's a one liner, thus:
      if(cond)
      {
      foo
      bar
      baz
      }

      or:
      if(cond){bash};

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    33. Re:whaaaaa? by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hate that standard. I refuse to follow it.

      Bill Gates, is that you?

    34. Re:whaaaaa? by hhghghghh · · Score: 1

      Yahoo! owns 5% of Google. Also, they only post stories supplied by third parties, in this case Ziff-Davies' PC Magazine.

    35. Re:whaaaaa? by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 1

      Dude - I don't have access to your Google Homepage.

      What's the password for that again?

    36. Re:whaaaaa? by ManxStef · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I was going to say that. In fact, the first appearance of the cracking of Apple's FairPlay encryption was in VLC, and was coded by none other than a certain JLJ:
      https://trac.videolan.org/vlc/log/trunk/modules/de mux/mp4/drms.c

      http://www.boingboing.net/2004/03/26/dvd_jon_on_vl c_and_a.html

    37. Re:whaaaaa? by Tower · · Score: 1

      I've seen an even sneakier version:
      #if 0 ...
      #endif

      and even
      #if THING_NEVER_DEFINED ...
      #endif

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    38. Re:whaaaaa? by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "if(cond){bash};"

      How irresponsible. Don't you know the world's supply of semicolons is running low? And you go and use one totally unnecessarily. You insenstive clod!

      --
      And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
    39. Re:whaaaaa? by Peyna · · Score: 1

      I don't see any indication that Yahoo News is automatically pulled from major sites in the same manner that Google is.

      Nor is there any indication that they couldn't choose to give a certain story a higher ranking if they wanted to.

      Do you have any evidence that a human being is not involved in the story selection/ranking process or that there is no way that Yahoo News could modify as necessary?

      --
      What?
    40. Re:whaaaaa? by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Under the new law it will also be illegal to manufacture a computer keyboard with the forward slash '/' key.

      Phew! I was scared there a minute but then I rememberd that I code in Python.

    41. Re:whaaaaa? by X · · Score: 1

      Yahoo posts a news story about their biggest competitor's protection mechanism being broken less than 24 hours after release.

      Sigh.... welcome to slashdot. Enjoy the show.

      Actually, as is shown at the top of the article, the story was actually published on PC Magazine. Yahoo doesn't have it's own news gathering service, they simply aggregate content from others.

      --
      sigs are a waste of space
    42. Re:whaaaaa? by prionic6 · · Score: 1

      Obvoiusly this was brought in to the "standards" by the MPAA to prevent hacks like those in this article. The only sane way to place curly braces is like this:

      if (true)
      {
      do_it();
      }

      Also, do not use

      if (true)
      do_it;

      because sooner than later you will be adding commands into the true-block. You'll need the braces anyways.

      Although if a project decided for other styles I follow them, of course. Consistency is more important than personal preference.

    43. Re:whaaaaa? by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      What, so now we're going to have keyboards without '/' or SHIFT?

      SunnComm Says Pointing to Shift Key 'Possible Felony'

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    44. Re:whaaaaa? by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Don't you ever do long division, then?

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    45. Re:whaaaaa? by sapped · · Score: 3, Funny

      Under the new law it will also be illegal to manufacture a computer keyboard with the forward slash '/' key.

      Finally! Microsoft's evil plan to eliminate Linux becomes clear. Go ahead and try to use your Linux box without the '/' key.

    46. Re:whaaaaa? by wheany · · Score: 1

      I don't get it...

    47. Re:whaaaaa? by azalin · · Score: 1

      and the www too!

    48. Re:whaaaaa? by Momoru · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see any indication that Yahoo News is automatically pulled from major sites in the same manner that Google is.

      Well that's because its not. Google does not pay for AP/Reuters/Knight Ridder, etc... syndication, so Google can not publish the content of news stories on their own web pages, instead they just have a bunch of news web sites they scan the content for and link. Yahoo gets it's news in the same way as the Washington Post or your local news, but instead of rewriting it, it just post the raw news feeds. This way it can directly get advertising money on the news pages themselves.

      Do you have any evidence that a human being is not involved in the story selection/ranking process or that there is no way that Yahoo News could modify as necessary?

      No, though I have no evidence that Google does this either besides their "word". I would only say that if you look at the Yahoo news homepage, and the AP homepage, the stories are in the exact same order, so I am guessing that the AP gives them the importance of each news article, after all there are thousands a day, individual people can't be sorting through them. And finally Yahoo hasn't given any special high ranking to the Google hack story, it is buried down in the Tech section and is only the 4th one listed.

    49. Re:whaaaaa? by Feyr · · Score: 1

      you owe me a new keyboard, nice pun :)

    50. Re:whaaaaa? by danila · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You are right that Yahoo and other media companies are trying to manipulate you. You are wrong about the goal of manipulation, though. They don't want to make you believe that Google has problems, they want to divert your attention from zillions of real issues in the world by regularly posting sensationalist drivel. You (and thousands of others) treat this story as if it was important. Yet, I can easily name 100 world issues that are singificantly (that is at least an order of mangnitude) more important to you than whether Google Video player is patched or not.

      As far as Yahoo!'s real goals are concerned, they achieved them completely.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    51. Re:whaaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :-P :beer:

      -nB

    52. Re:whaaaaa? by michrech · · Score: 1

      The www is just a fad. We don't need support for it anyway. We'll just hardcode our browser to "www.microsoft.com" and you can navigate your happy ass from there.

      Semi-Anonomous MS Coder

      --
      telnet://sinep.gotdns.com -- TW2002 and LORD registered!

      --
      bork bork bork!
    53. Re:whaaaaa? by 2short · · Score: 1

      What "standards"? Is some standards body actually publishing standards on coding style? I know most such orgs are completely irrelevant, but they don't have to make it so obvious. Whether "{" should be preceded by a newline is one of the greatest pointless style debates of all time. Declaring one way or the other "standard" won't change anything. Those who like a newline there will put it there. Those who don't like the newline there won't put it there, and even if the "standard" agrees with them, they will still be wrong.

    54. Re:whaaaaa? by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      There is actually an ANSI standard for C coding style. Noone pays attention to it.

      Although the real style freaks use Python. The language doesn't just look slightly odd if you mix styles- it completely breaks.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    55. Re:whaaaaa? by Jerf · · Score: 1

      Well, no mods as of this writing has thought it was funny, but at least nobody modded it "offtopic". :-)

      (Now, this post... but that's why I turned off the karma bonus.)

    56. Re:whaaaaa? by Captain+BooBoo · · Score: 1

      we should ban all "//"s ban the usage of the dreaded // ASAP or else the terrorists will find out the power of the // and we will all be doomed...DOOMED I SAY!

    57. Re:whaaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, both the media and legal system seem to have a great misconception about what hacking is. Basically they've adopted the idea that anything used for something that it wasn't intended for is hacking... even if nothing on the server is ever changed and even if everything is completely legal. Man who used pocket knife to tighten screw sentenced to five years in prison, news at 11 :P

      Honestly, I think the IT world is beginning to face a similar problem that science has faced for years. Those in power, and the public in general, have a fundamental misconception about how the field works, and hence have trouble making informed decisions about things happening in the field. And then people have giant battles over evolution being a theory, what exactly that means, and what some elementary school kid is going to think when he or she hears that.

      Frankly, I wonder if the guy that was convicted for 'hacking' a University of Texas system and collecting social security numbers was simply convicted because people misunderstood what he actually did. From the description I heard at the time it happened, he just picked some social security numbers with prefixes for Texas-born people, provided them to a form which returned people's personal information. Yes, the brute force nature of his actions was questionable, but I have a hard time calling it hacking. It's as if the university published a bunch of information in the basement of some building and then arrested people when they wandered in there and started copying the information.

      And from the Supreme Court's recent actions, it sounds as if technology makers are going to be sued for the misuse of their products. I'm surprised that no one's included Apple and Microsoft in those suits because they advertise that you can rip CDs to mp3 with their products.

    58. Re:whaaaaa? by retinaburn · · Score: 1
      Under the new law it will also be illegal to manufacture a computer keyboard with the forward slash '/' key.

      And in other news use of the internet has decreased sharply. Those who are still using the internet are using the default homepages more, rather than drilling down to the page they want.

      Also millions of students fail math because they no longer have the divide button crutch they had been relying on for years.

    59. Re:whaaaaa? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      No, their agenda is to get you to look at their site and their ads. They'll post whatever gets you to look.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    60. Re:whaaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Poster hint: Dumb joke.) ;)

    61. Re:whaaaaa? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Python's variable handling is nasty though. Explicit definition and forced types are much better for error finding. When a function complains about getting an int instead of a string or something you have to check where that int could be inserted, instead of being told right away "XY tried to write an int into a string variable".

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    62. Re:whaaaaa? by Romeozulu · · Score: 1

      "I've made countless little mods to open-source apps in order to get them to behave the way I'd like. I've never gotten news coverage for adding "//" before an 'if(condition)' statment"

      "//" huh? Don't you mean "REM"?

    63. Re:whaaaaa? by Deezire · · Score: 1

      You see, Norway is going to use open source in public departments so we need open source program crackers. :)

    64. Re:whaaaaa? by Finuvir · · Score: 1

      Ctrl-Shift-2F in Gnome

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    65. Re:whaaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you comply to the GPL and relase the source? :p

      I sure wouldn't! The // is mine, patent pending, so back off!

    66. Re:whaaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You insenstive clod!

      I guess lowercase "i" is in short supply, too...

    67. Re:whaaaaa? by Mozk · · Score: 1

      Yes! It makes it easier to append a line to the end also.

      --
      No existe.
    68. Re:whaaaaa? by tqft · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " What do standards matter on code that makes no difference to the resulting program, and that no-one needs to read?"

      These are known as famous last words.

      --
      The Singularity is closer than you think
      Quant
    69. Re:whaaaaa? by danila · · Score: 2

      You are not looking deep enough. Do you seriously think that Yahoo and ZiffDavis do not have a well thought-out content policy? That media adopts this content model (sensationalistic, trivial and pointless bits of unrelated information, served in easy to digest chunks interspersed with ads) means something. It didn't happen by itself and it's not unimportant. Yes, the individual editor may not think twice about why he is adding that story, just like a cell in your body does not think about why it's contracting or producing some hormone. But the system as a whole was created (partly by design, partly through a sequence of small evolutionary changes) to achieve certain result and thus to benefit certain parties.

      It just so happens that the result is uninformed, intellectually lazy unmotivated public.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    70. Re:whaaaaa? by Sketch · · Score: 1
      Actually, as is shown at the top of the article, the story was actually published on PC Magazine. Yahoo doesn't have it's own news gathering service, they simply aggregate content from others.
      Yep. I expected to be modded funny, not insightful. I guess the moderators didn't actually read the article...
      --
      -- OpenVerse Visual Chat: http://openverse.com
    71. Re:whaaaaa? by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      Well, I use APL.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    72. Re:whaaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that's funny about this is that even realizing that this is a joke, I still was thinking "egads, now how do I work around *this* one?"

    73. Re:whaaaaa? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      "Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter." - Homer

      Seriously, you're absolutely right: ALL INPUT tends to be a distraction from the things that concern us most (food/fight/fuck).

      I really like that you grok "being a cell". If I was a cell, I'd want to be a brain cell: their lifespan tends to be very close to the organism's; and they're the only cells in the entire body which are important enough to be surrounded by a bone cage, and protected by a blood-brain barrier.

      Sure, the red blood cells make a lot more friends and see a lot more of the "world" that is my body, but they also die much faster as well. (It's similar to my desire to be a developer rather than a soldier: less travel, less sex, but also less legionnaire's disease and less dying.)

      There are some things that kill brain cells, though... I just hope "God" doesn't like drinking as much as I do!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    74. Re:whaaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      BAH!!! Yahoo News is not a News Agency, cripes it just grabs a feed from the freakin' AP and Reuters

      It isn't just Yahoo and Google. Look at your local paper sometime. About the only original content there is an opinion columnist or two. They call that journalism these days.

    75. Re:whaaaaa? by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Funny
      It's a nightmare for the industry, the // sequence is being used to defeat protections [...]
      True story: Citrix had a double-secret-probation-type bug, which was that if you logged in with "//" as a password, you'd be logged in to whatever account you typed in the username field!

      This was because there was a special "feature" of the password field, which allowed you to type "current/new/new" to change your password during the login process. Stupid sunbaked developers!

      As a "neat" side effect, this also set the password for that account to the empty string! (Because, in the above example, both "new" are empty string.)

      That was way back in WinView, their OS/2-based product, so don't look to exploit it...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    76. Re:whaaaaa? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      No, these are famous last words: "It's ok, I'm on the pill."

    77. Re:whaaaaa? by jokkebk · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, script kiddies and HTML coders are using the still more conspicious "" to thwart security specialists and noob Slashdot readers all around the world.

      The problem with this method is, that the characters <, !, - and > are needed in common use and are not as easy to remove from keyboard as /.

      For those of you who do not see what I mean: I mean just you guys.

      --
      http://codeandlife.com
    78. Re:whaaaaa? by X · · Score: 1

      ROTFL!

      --
      sigs are a waste of space
  2. Interesting to see.... by Norfair · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ..Google's reaction. Up till now, most folk have been singing the praises of the nice, friendly, cuddly search engine company. Will this change anything? I personally doubt it.

    1. Re:Interesting to see.... by Norfair · · Score: 0
      Damn, this is open-source?

      Foot. in. mouth.

    2. Re:Interesting to see.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Google's reaction was to disable the video service.

    3. Re:Interesting to see.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is anyone else getting sick of Jon? Like the last few of his '1337 cr4ckz', this has achieved absolutely nothing except for disrupting a legitimate service.

      DeCSS was good, even though it's questionable if he wrote it. He should have stopped there though. Now he's just showing off at the expense of other people.

    4. Re:Interesting to see.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which "other people" is this at the expense of? People trying to control what you can do with binary data, maybe? If "other people" put content on public airwaves or the internet or on a DVD that you have legally purchased, do you believe that these "other people" should be able to control what you do with it?

    5. Re:Interesting to see.... by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      He modified FOSS code. I do not know what else there is to say.

    6. Re:Interesting to see.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like the restrictions a product places on you, then don't buy it. If the restrictions are too severe, then the general public will reject it, and it will fail. This obviously does not count in the case of an industry-standard such as DVD encryption, which was used for illegal price-fixing, so breaking it was justifiable.

      iTunes and this were not forced upon anyone in any way, and cracking around them in the case of iTunes merely forced everyone to update, and cracking Google Video has just lead to it being disabled. Any legitimate users of these services have therefore suffered as a result of Jon's totally fruitless behaviour.

      Binary data costs money to create, therefore it deserves copyright, and therefore the copyright holder can place any restriction he/she chooses on it.

    7. Re:Interesting to see.... by doubledoh · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. I liked the fact that Google essentially chose an open source solution, and now they will consider implementing something closed source to combat "hacking". This is not a win.

      --
      I think, therefore I doh.
    8. Re:Interesting to see.... by chrisd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's reaction: It's not hacking, it's just compiling. We gave the world the patch for god's sake.

      --
      Co-Editor, Open Sources
      Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
    9. Re:Interesting to see.... by Norfair · · Score: 1
      well, i did apologise.

      sort of.

    10. Re:Interesting to see.... by ProfaneBaby · · Score: 1

      What, you mean the media is blowing some non-story out of proportion? The hell you say!

      --
      Video Phone Blogs send video messages straight to the web.
    11. Re:Interesting to see.... by Momoru · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chris, are you making that statement as a representative of Google? If so you might want to be careful given what happened to Mark Jen. I'm sure you as the Open Source director agree with this hack, but perhaps the people in the Google Video dept that planned on making some money with this idea don't quite feel the same way?

    12. Re:Interesting to see.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing how wishy-washy your Libertarianism really is. We should thank people for breaking DVD encryption, but hound them for breaking DRM? Consistency anyone?

      First, stop thinking that the market will automagically correct bad behavior on the part of content providers. It won't. Second, stop trying to differentiate between "evil corporates" and "good corporates": they're just corporates and they do whatever it takes to make money.

      In both cases you're talking about, corporates are locking down content AFTER it's been received by the consumer. I say good riddance to any kind of DRM anywhere. If that means iTunes goes under, so be it: I've got dozens of great local artists who would love a 50% take on their CDs. Once the data is sitting on the consumer's hardware, it belongs to them. Period.

  3. You can skip the articles, not much content by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can skip the articles they don't tell you much other than what is in the Slashdot Summary. However, the blog entry has the code part on it. Here are all the articles including code entry...

    Story:

    Ryan Naraine - PC Magazine Tue Jun 28,10:49 AM ET

    Norwegian hacker Jon Lech Johansen has cracked the lock on Google's new in-browser video player.

    Johansen, also known as 'DVD Jon' for his work on decrypting DVD security codes, has created a patch for the Google Video Viewer--less than 24 hours after the search giant shipped the video playback plug-in, a tool based on the open-source VideoLAN media player.

    The patch, released on Johansen's 'So Sue Me' blog, effectively disables a modification Google made to the VideoLAN code to prevent users from playing videos that are not hosted on Google's servers.

    Johansen said the patch, which requires the .Net run-time framework, will remove Google's restriction and allow the playback of video files that aren't on the video.google.com server.

    The 21-year-old hacker, who faced two trials in Norway in 2002 and 2003 for his role in the release of the
    DeCSS decryption software, is a hero to many for his efforts to defeat DRM (digital rights management) mechanisms built into media player technology.

    He has been involved in a public cat-and-mouse game with Apple Inc., releasing several tools to bypass the DRM software used to encrypt music sold on the iTunes Music Store. LINK TO: PyMusique Unlocks iTunes Copy Protection. Again. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1779526 ,00.asp

    Johansen has also cracked Apple's AirPort Express's encryption and released a proof-of-concept program that allows
    Linux users to play video encoded with Microsoft's proprietary WMV9 codec. The proof-of-concept is based on the VideoLan code.

    Addict3d.org more details:

    Jon Lech Johansen, "DVD Jon", took just one day to build a crack to allow you to play video on your website using Google's VLC-based player.

    This means you can publish video that will play on your webpage and will work for anyone who has Google's player installed.

    Johansen, also known as 'DVD Jon' for his work on decrypting DVD security codes, has created a patch for the Google Video Viewer--less than 24 hours after the search giant shipped the video playback plug-in, a tool based on the open-source VideoLAN media player.

    Crack can be found here -

    http://nanocrew.net/wp-content/GVVPatch.exe

    http://nanocrew.net/?p=114

    Blog Entry:

    Google has released Google Video Viewer, a browser plugin based on VLC. Here's one of the features they've added:

    + // Google mods
    + const char* allowed_host = \"video.google.com\";
    + char * host_found = strstr(p_sys->url.psz_host, allowed_host);
    + if ((host_found == NULL) ||
    + ((host_found + strlen(allowed_host)) !=
    + (p_sys->url.psz_host + strlen(p_sys->url.psz_host)))) {
    + msg_Warn( p_access, \"invalid host, only video.google.com is allowed\" );
    + goto error;
    + }

    This "feature" prevents you from playing videos that are not hosted on Google's servers. Download and run this patch I wrote to remove this restriction. Running the patch requires a .NET runtime.

    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
    1. Re:You can skip the articles, not much content by TheViciousOverWind · · Score: 1, Insightful

      According to this,

      + const char* allowed_host = \"video.google.com\";
      + char * host_found = strstr(p_sys->url.psz_host, allowed_host);


      Wouldn't it be possible to have a subdomain structure like:
      video.google.com.whateverdomain.com
      And then be able to use Google Video on your own site, without applying the patch at all?

      --
      My <1000 UID is with a hot chick
    2. Re:You can skip the articles, not much content by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      Let's see, he uhh..

      1. Was involved in the release of the DeCSS code.
      2. Was instrumental in breaking several DVD locking/protection DRMs.
      3. Is currently breaking iTunes DRM.
      4. Just broke Google Video.

      This is the kind of guy that just suddenly one day turns up missing, and conspiracy theories get started.

    3. Re:You can skip the articles, not much content by dmoore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. Read the second clause of the IF statement.

    4. Re:You can skip the articles, not much content by Paul+Rose · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you stop reading there ...
      The next lines

      + if ((host_found == NULL) ||
      + ((host_found + strlen(allowed_host)) !=
      + (p_sys->url.psz_host + strlen(p_sys-url.psz_host)))) {

      however make sure that the allowed_host was found at the end of the host being checked (in typicall terse "C").

    5. Re:You can skip the articles, not much content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that won't work. Check the second condition on the if:

      ((host_found + strlen(allowed_host)) != (p_sys->url.psz_host + strlen(p_sys->url.psz_host))

    6. Re:You can skip the articles, not much content by Evro · · Score: 1

      There's also a strlen check to make sure the length of "video.google.com" matches the strlen of the host.

      --
      rooooar
    7. Re:You can skip the articles, not much content by Anders · · Score: 1
      + if ((host_found == NULL) ||
      + ((host_found + strlen(allowed_host)) !=
      + (p_sys->url.psz_host + strlen(p_sys-url.psz_host)))) {

      however make sure that the allowed_host was found at the end of the host being checked (in typicall terse "C").

      I think that

      if (!host_found || (host_found[strlen(allowed_host)] != 0)) {
      would be terser, not to mention easier to read and more efficient.

      (and I probably goofed up so it does not do the same :-).

    8. Re:You can skip the articles, not much content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, the code uses goto. Its generally
      considered a bad programming practice to
      use goto in your programs.

  4. Yeeeeah by HyperChicken · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, in other words, he modified the source code, which was being distributed. They didn't attempt to obfuscate that they didn't allow it from other hosts. They didn't entangle the code or anything. The code was wide open.

    In other words, big friggin deal. All you had to do was grep the code of an error message and a little snipping of the code. Any fool could have done it. Or even screw that, it was domain-based. Setup an HTTP server, modify your hosts file to alias "video.google.com" (or whatever the domain was) to 127.0.0.1, and you're done. Or just modify VLC to know the MIME type "application/x-google-vlc-plugin" and you can play your heart away.

    What "crack" will he do next? Take the VLC code to dump the file/stream you're playing, add it to Google's code, and create a Google Stream Ripper? Wow... how... amaz... ing. Or maybe add some awesome skins to the Google player? Yeah, that'd be great. Best part of all, he'll do it in 48 hours, while standing on his head, without sleeping, pizza, or coffee, and while playing the banjo!!!

    --
    Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
    1. Re:Yeeeeah by 110010001000 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Uh, if you alias "video.google.com" to 127.0.0.1 then you wont be able to view any videos that aren't hosted locally.

      BTW, a hack is a hack - not matter how trivial it may be to you. To me the more important story is how this exposes a weakness in OSS (from Googles POV). Its trivial to change the source code. If the player was CSS it would be much less trivial. I don't know how google will respond. Perhaps with a CSS player?

    2. Re:Yeeeeah by HyperChicken · · Score: 1

      Uh, if you alias "video.google.com" to 127.0.0.1 then you wont be able to view any videos that aren't hosted locally.

      Thank you, Captain Obvious. Your services are no longer needed. Back to your Obvious Cave to rest and fight another day.

      --
      Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
    3. Re:Yeeeeah by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 0

      Next he'll make it go to 11.

      --
      http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
    4. Re:Yeeeeah by DrSkwid · · Score: 1


      except it's not even definitely true

      you might run Apache with various mod_rewrite / mod_proxy rules so you can do both

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    5. Re:Yeeeeah by dionoea · · Score: 1
      Or just modify VLC to know the MIME type "application/x-google-vlc-plugin" and you can play your heart away.


      You don't even need to modify that ... we added it to the trunk (and 0.8.3 branch) yesterday. So people using nightly builds should be able to watch google movies (unless they also check that you're using their plugin ... but that can be fixed too)
    6. Re:Yeeeeah by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Uh, if you alias "video.google.com" to 127.0.0.1 then you wont be able to view any videos that aren't hosted locally.

      Thank you, Captain Obvious. Your services are no longer needed. Back to your Obvious Cave to rest and fight another day.


      If it was so obvious, why did you present it as a way to get around their domain based filter and view video from other websites? Are you a habitual moron who spends so much time posting stuff that is wrong that we are supposed to recognize your name and dismiss your post as "obviously wrong" or what?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    7. Re:Yeeeeah by Avohir · · Score: 1

      you make it sound like he's the one tooting his own horn here. If you look at his blog entry, all he does is state what he did, and link to the crack. Its the news organizations that have taken this relatively simple and mundane development and run with it, not Jon himself.

      --
      To err is human, to really foul up requires a computer
    8. Re:Yeeeeah by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Best part of all, he'll do it in 48 hours, while standing on his head, without sleeping, pizza, or coffee, and while playing the banjo!!!

      When you say "no coffee", is that supposed to imply no cola either? I dunno, no caffine might be a showstopper.

      P.S. You can pick up a handy-dandy Banjo Keyboard here.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  5. Ironically by kc0re · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ironically, there is nothing on Google News concerning it.

    Anyone else notice that Yahoo Search looks and acts EXACTLY like Google's? (That's probably redudant...)

    I am just waiting for Revenge of the Sith to hit Google Video.

    1. Re:Ironically by adinu79 · · Score: 1

      LOL, I don't know if it will take long, already seen a lot of SG-1, Atlantis and Battlestar Galactica episodes on it, LOL

    2. Re:Ironically by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Anyone else notice that Yahoo Search looks and acts EXACTLY like Google's? (That's probably redudant...)

      Nope, that's not true at all. Very different results.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:Ironically by Musteval · · Score: 1

      Ironically, there is nothing on Google News concerning it.

      http://news.google.com/news?num=50&hl=en&ie=UTF-8& scoring=d&q=%22DVD+Jon%22&btnG=Search+News

      Oh really?

      --
      Note to mods: I'm probably being sarcastic.
    4. Re:Ironically by kryogen1x · · Score: 1

      It's on personalized google's slashdot feature right now.

    5. Re:Ironically by kc0re · · Score: 1

      Doesn't count if you have to go searching for it!




      (pun intended)

    6. Re:Ironically by adinu79 · · Score: 1

      DOH......

    7. Re:Ironically by idonthack · · Score: 1

      Don't only IE users get to do that?



      HEATHEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      ---
      LEEROY JENKINS!!!
      Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    8. Re:Ironically by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I am just waiting for Revenge of the Sith to hit Google Video.

      Have you checked the Microsoft sites?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  6. It wasn't protected much, anyway by mgv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article, the only protection was limiting the allowable sources to video.google.com and adding a new mime type.

    Not to undermine Jon, just noting why it took him 24 hours to break this - It was not designed to withstand much of an attack.

    Nontheless, most users won't patch, so it will work anyway.

    Michael

    --
    There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    1. Re:It wasn't protected much, anyway by cakesy · · Score: 1

      Right, because you did it in how long?? Not saying that it ain't easy, but realise that you are reading a dodgey news article, that is really trying to sensationalise the issue. Wow, I really thought that people stopped believing everything they read.

    2. Re:It wasn't protected much, anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess he had to wake up, eat breakfast, surf the web, reply to email, get some pr0n loaded, jack off, then check the latest geek news sites... before he could craxx0r it..

    3. Re:It wasn't protected much, anyway by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Right, because you did it in how long??

      I did a similar thing to this, but I used different code. I did it in seven minutes, and that includes the time it took to drink the tea.

    4. Re:It wasn't protected much, anyway by cakesy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but what are you comparing it too? He never mentions how long it took him to right, the article just mentions that it was released 24 hours after google came out with it. And what is your version of something similar?? You are being quite ridiculous.

    5. Re:It wasn't protected much, anyway by t35t0r · · Score: 1

      It didn't take him 24 hours to circumvent it, probably less than 1 min.

      It took him 24 hours after it was released to get around to looking at it and then realizing the stupid limitation, and then fixing it in ..as i said.. less than a minute.

  7. Another Windows only service. by caluml · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Windows 2000 or later with latest updates installed; Firefox 1.0+ or IE 5.0+. DirectX 9.0c End-User Runtime.

    Cmon Google.

    1. Re:Another Windows only service. by CrackedButter · · Score: 0

      Your post is the most interesting thing in this thread. The rest is yawn worthy.

    2. Re:Another Windows only service. by generic-man · · Score: 2, Funny

      They'll have Linux and Mac support by the time Google Video is out of beta.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    3. Re:Another Windows only service. by caluml · · Score: 1

      I like your sig :)

      It's been 6 seconds since you hit 'reply'.

    4. Re:Another Windows only service. by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      Exactly, I'd really like someone to point out a Microsoft reliant company who hasn't had their ass handed to them by MS.

      Microsoft is the Marquis de Sade of the technology world.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    5. Re:Another Windows only service. by germanStefan · · Score: 1

      Petition Google to atleast state that it will work with Linux. It is these things "Require windows XP or Mac OSX" that make people think nothing works with Linux. I see these things all the time on boxes for digital cameras. Let google know that they should provide a download for Linux users.

    6. Re:Another Windows only service. by N1KO · · Score: 1

      Surely someone can break the anti-linux protection by modifying the program's source code.

    7. Re:Another Windows only service. by nandhp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you seen my Bookmarklet to fix the URL of the Play Video link so that it can be copied-and-pasted into xine (and then played)?

    8. Re:Another Windows only service. by Omnieiunium · · Score: 1

      So never?

    9. Re:Another Windows only service. by t35t0r · · Score: 2, Informative

      uhhh...all you have to do is download vlc 0.8.2 apply the diff patch http://code.google.com/vlc-diff.txt and then configure and make the program and it becomes in essence the same as google video player.

      but i guess you don't know anything about compiling and or use a binary only linux distribution.

  8. The "click" [/] "click" [/] "chunk" [SPACE]... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... heard 'round the world!

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:The "click" [/] "click" [/] "chunk" [SPACE]... by aarku · · Score: 1

      Okay, to be fair, he had to comment out 8 lines... so that's more like "click click chunk ca click click chunk ca click click chunk ca click click chunk ca click click chunk ca click click chunk ca click click chunk ca click click chunk chunk" . . unless he is using some fancy pants block editing.

  9. Google and Windows by aarku · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's up with Google releasing all these Windows-only apps, anyways? Really, now.

    1. Re:Google and Windows by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Havent't you heard? They are buying Microsoft next week. Vertical integration, they called it...

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Google and Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For a supposed non-evil company, Google sure do have a strong penchant for Windows and javascript. Curious isn't it?

      video.google.com is not so bad as other recent offerings, I can just add the mime type for their video to my browser and dl to my hard drive before transco^H^H^H^H^H^H^H viewing the content.

    3. Re:Google and Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google starts with windows, since they are the largest user base, and does linux/mac versions later. Sorry but that makes sense

    4. Re:Google and Windows by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Well, at least this'll be easy to port to Linux and Mac - it's a fork of VLC, which is available on Linux and Mac.

    5. Re:Google and Windows by generic-man · · Score: 1

      When have they ever "done a linux/mac version" of any non-browser-based application?

      Oh, right, they'll do it when the beta period ends. Sorry but that makes sense.

      --
      For more information, click here.
  10. Macrovision by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's a good thing he didn't try to tangle with Macrovision. As lightning-uk almost found out, it's hard to code when you're fingers are broken and your eyes have swollen shut from contusions.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Macrovision by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      nmjo iotr5'w n jokt5.m i eo igt edvery7eday.

  11. Hold Your Horses by taskforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Before everybody starts criticizing Jon... please remember that he's actually not publicising this as being a huge crack operation, it's the sites which are publicising his hack which are. He's just made a minor fix to a program, nowhere on his Blog does he say "OMGZ I HAX0R J00!" Infact he documents the exact way he did it to show that he didn't actually do anything complex.

    --
    My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
    1. Re:Hold Your Horses by imr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why on earth do you need the .NET runtime in order to patch an app?

    2. Re:Hold Your Horses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm guessing it's because he used MS Visual Studio to compile it, which will require .NET for damn near anything with a GUI.

    3. Re:Hold Your Horses by Exitar · · Score: 1

      Because DVD Jon is EVIL!!!!

    4. Re:Hold Your Horses by AviLazar · · Score: 1, Redundant

      minor fix to a program

      I think you are mistaken. It is not a "minor fix" but a "minor hack". Fixing it implies that it was broken, I am pretty sure it was not borken - just had a feature that Jon did not like.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    5. Re:Hold Your Horses by Da+Fokka · · Score: 1
      why on earth do you need the .NET runtime in order to patch an app?

      Because of the same reason you need the JRE to run Java applications.

    6. Re:Hold Your Horses by imr · · Score: 1

      Who would need any runtime to only patch an app?

    7. Re:Hold Your Horses by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Because of the same reason you need the JRE to run Java applications.

      OMG!!1!
      Now SUN is being just as evil as Microsoft!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    8. Re:Hold Your Horses by ManxStef · · Score: 1

      The other big thing that everyone jumping over each other to say, "I could've done that, big deal, he's not l33t." seems to have missed is that DVD Jon is a VLC DEVELOPER and has been for YEARS. Remember when the FairPlay crack first appeared? Where was it? Oh, that's right, it was in VLC and the source committed by a certain "JLJ". (And I'd like to see those same critics claim they could crack FairPlay!)

      So is it really a big surprise that when someone changes code in a project that he's involved in he points out where and how to change it back, should you wish? Wow. Furthermore, everyone's reporting that he took 24 hours to do it; no, it probably took him about 5 minutes, if that. Give the guy a break, this is pure media hype, not his own.

    9. Re:Hold Your Horses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true.

    10. Re:Hold Your Horses by m50d · · Score: 1

      Maybe he likes coding C#? I write little scripts that could easily be done with shell in python, because I prefer coding in it.

      --
      I am trolling
    11. Re:Hold Your Horses by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      Fixing it implies that it was broken, I am pretty sure it was not borken - just had a feature that Jon did not like.
      I generally do qualify features like copy protection, DRM etc as bugs. I think I'm not alone in that.
    12. Re:Hold Your Horses by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I generally do qualify features like copy protection, DRM etc as bugs. I think I'm not alone in that.

      Not trying to sound like a troll, or even a flame - but you (and anyone who agrees with you)are wrong.

      It may be an undeseriable feature, but it is a feature, not a bug.

      To try and make your own definition (knowingly) and passing it on without that disclaimer is also wrong.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    13. Re:Hold Your Horses by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1
      Actually, "feature" usually implies an added positive capability, whereas "broken" refers to software that is unable to do something that it should. "Intentionally broken" is not a contradiction, and I think it applies here. One can intentionally break software's ability to play video from certain domains, just as you can intentionally break a DVD player's ability to respond to certain user input or a browser's ability to not run viruses. In all cases, the solution is more appropriately called a "fix" than a "hack."

      Wow, I sound like RMS.

    14. Re:Hold Your Horses by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Really? Please show me where it says this stuff. Where does it say a feature implies added positive capabilities?

      Dictionary.com Feature
      1. A good property or behaviour (as of a program). Whether it was intended or not is immaterial.
      2. An intended property or behaviour (as of a program). Whether it is good or not is immaterial (but if bad, it is also a misfeature).
      3. A surprising property or behaviour; in particular, one that is purposely inconsistent because it works better that way - such an inconsistency is therefore a feature and not a bug. This kind of feature is sometimes called a miswart.

      First: It is a desired property of the programmers - they wanted this form of restriction. In Google's eyes this is a good aspect of the program, and even if they didn't see it as good, it was an intended aspect of this program. Notice the emphasis on the or

      Now a Bug:

      An unwanted and unintended property of a program or piece of hardware, especially one that causes it to malfunction. Antonym of feature. E.g. "There's a bug in the editor: it writes things out backward." The identification and removal of bugs in a program is called

      Notice the bolded and Just in case you did not see it. If the designers of this program did intend this aspect of the program, it fails to meet one of your requirements. As for the "unwanted" aspect, well you may not want it - but since Google wanted that aspect, our above reference shows it fails to meet the aspect of a bug.

      I hope this is enough to show you the difference between a bug and a feature. Your definition is in place because you dislike things like DRM. While I do not like it, I understand the difference between a feature and a bug.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    15. Re:Hold Your Horses by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Someone who wishes to run a patch app written in Java, C#, or any other language that compiles to intermediate code.

      Stop beating around the bush... are you suggesting no one should ever write a patch application in these languages? It's the year 2005 - nearly every Windows user has the .NET Framework and/or a JRE installed, and a .NET app is more portable than a plain Win32 application, which is what Jon could've released instead. (Not that portability matters if you're patching a Win32 binary!)

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    16. Re:Hold Your Horses by Grendl · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hope this is enough to show you the difference between a bug and a feature.

      Feature: A bug with seniority.

    17. Re:Hold Your Horses by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      Well, it seems to me that "feature" is in the eye of the beholder - I don't really care whether Google wants something, if I don't think it's a "good property or behavior" then I don't consider it a feature. Your definition specifically says (Google's) intent is immaterial. Now, I'll agree that it's not a bug, because it's as the designers intended. (Well, as the modifiers intended; obviously Google didn't design VLC.) But you'll note I never called it a bug; I said it was broken. There's no such thing as an intentional bug, but something can be intentionally broken, again in my view, not Google's, as is the case here.

  12. only for .NET? by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    I'm no geek and really do not understand .NET clearly. I am still running Windows98 SP2. Does this fact mean that I cannot utilise his patch since Windows98 is just too old to even have a .NET runtime?

    1. Re:only for .NET? by Momoru · · Score: 1

      Well considering the minimum requirements for Google's Video viewer are:

      System Requirements Windows 2000 or later with latest updates installed;

      Don't bother patching, because you cant run the program to begin with.

    2. Re:only for .NET? by chiph · · Score: 1

      I'm no geek

      Then why are you here?

      Oh, and while Win98 is an officially supported platform for .net, it doesn't run .net code well at all. Seriously, it's time for you to upgrade your OS.

      Chip H.

    3. Re:only for .NET? by Guardian+of+Terra · · Score: 1

      Windows 98 HAD .Net runtime last time I checked.

    4. Re:only for .NET? by no+soup+for+you · · Score: 1

      You can run .NET applications on Windows 98, but probably can't write apps. Also, you won't have access to some features, like "Enterprise Services"... more info at microsoft.com

      It says to go to Windows Update to get the package, although I'm not sure if Windows 98 works with Windows Update.

      --
      If you blog it...
    5. Re:only for .NET? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

      ...

      You've gotta be kidding me.

      Get XP from one of the various P2P apps. Reformat.

      If you can find slashdot and make a reply on it, then you can reformat your computer.

      Do that, install the updates, and don't worry about it.

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    6. Re:only for .NET? by aussie_a · · Score: 1
      I'm no geek

      Then why are you here?

      Because he's a Nerd. "Slashdot. News for Nerds." Says nothing about geeks.
  13. True Colors by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now we see what Googles true colors are.

    Will they say "hey thanx for the tip? Want a job?" or will they go all RIAA on little johny?

    Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of as my stomach turns!

    1. Re:True Colors by mindstrm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or they will more intelligently do neither saying "Anyone can modify our open source client to do whatever they want, for whatever reason they want."

      Do you really think google doens't understand open source?

    2. Re:True Colors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well hopefully they are smarted than you...

      p.s. Johny doesn't live in the us...

    3. Re:True Colors by kieran · · Score: 1

      Perhaps even "We here at google have applied Jon's patch to the code and agree it's an improvement, so we'll be leaving it this way for all users"?

      That might take the hot air out of Yahoo's sails.

    4. Re:True Colors by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      Or say nothing at all, because, as everyone here knows, this whole thing is a non-issue. This story is like reporting on which foot I put my sock on first this morning. Since I don't even remember, it'd be news to me, but I still wouldn't care.

      "Stuff that matters", my ass.

    5. Re:True Colors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just checked the video on google. It was your right foot.

  14. Gah! It's not even useful for most! by LincolnQ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Quote:
    This means you can publish video that will play on your webpage and will work for anyone who has Google's player installed.

    That part is highly misleading! The people who want to view video on your website each individually need to download the patch! It's not very useful to content providers with this restriction.

    How about users? Who would download this patch? Well, people who want to watch videos tagged with application/x-google-vlc-plugin that aren't from google. Not too many of these...

  15. Well, VLC already has a mozilla plugin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Videolan is backporting Jon's work so it can play google streams, and non-google streams.

    So it seems, in the end, everyone will get a browser plugin that can play google video streams.

    The wonders of open source.

    Now, if only google had chosen Ogg Theora instead of patent encumbered MPEG4.

  16. Escape the tyranny that is Google! by BandwidthHog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, you'll need to be locked into .NET to do so.

    Yay.

    Uhh, good sir, could you please put the shackles back on? My ankles are getting cold. Thank you.

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    1. Re:Escape the tyranny that is Google! by Swamii · · Score: 1

      Then download and run the free & open source Mono instead, which runs Jon's patch just fine.

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    2. Re:Escape the tyranny that is Google! by m50d · · Score: 1

      Have you actually tried running it under mono?

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:Escape the tyranny that is Google! by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      No, I've not used any of the software in question. Not Google Video, not DVD Jon's workaround, not .NET. It was this little thing I like to call <fingerquotes>a joke</fingerquotes>. See, I found it ironic that you could use a little bit of .NET code to get around the-- oh, nevermind.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  17. I'm disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm disappointed. It has been, what, 2 days? It took Jon 2 days to crack another DRM?

    People are getting lazy ya know... I thought Jon should have cracked it in 3-4 hours.... That boy needs to stop smoking so much....

    PS: Mod me Funny +5 / Informative +5

  18. Of course... by Dunkirk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course Yahoo News is running an article on how something Google made got hacked.

    --
    Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
    1. Re:Of course... by Momoru · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yahoo News is not a news agency, its just a feed from the Associated Press or Reuters. Yahoo hosts the content from the feeds, that is all.

    2. Re:Of course... by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain that while the stories themselves are just fed through, someone at yahoo is responsible for picking which are shown as news and which are just avaliable if you do a search. Both AP and Reuters have thousands of stories a day.

    3. Re:Of course... by XBoyAdv · · Score: 1

      In this article's case, it is PC Magazine/Ziff Davis .

  19. Not much of a hack RTFA by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    all DVD Johny did was remove an if statement that checks is the URL is from google or not...

    the upshot is you get a VLC plugin that can read some propriatary MS formats (thanx to google paying the bill for those software royalties)

    it seems so easy that it's as if Google was just waiting for someone to come in and hack it.

    1. Re:Not much of a hack RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I'm really not getting this...

      VLC already comes with that plug-in.

      Why would you patch Google's version, when you could just download the Videolan.org version, and not have to patch anything?

  20. bitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, tone it down its 9am. Let me guess, your a little bitter because you ended up being a database geek instead of an elite haxor?

  21. goto considered harmful !!! by scovetta · · Score: 4, Funny
    + // Google mods
    + const char* allowed_host = \"video.google.com\";
    + char * host_found = strstr(p_sys->url.psz_host, allowed_host);
    + if ((host_found == NULL) ||
    + ((host_found + strlen(allowed_host)) !=
    + (p_sys->url.psz_host + strlen(p_sys->url.psz_host)))) {
    + msg_Warn( p_access, \"invalid host, only video.google.com is allowed\" );
    + goto error;
    + }
    I'm disappointed by Google's use of the 'goto' keyword. As was clearly described in this paper, the use of 'goto' leads to "swiss-cheesing" of the brain, the inability to think logically, and a plethora of other problems, leading eventually to brain-rot and inability to write code in anything but Perl.

    I think we should all remember that just because Google is the pinnacle of success and is second only to (insert your diety here), Google too can make mistakes.
    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
    1. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      He in fact ends his paper by saying that goto is not to be avoided at all costs, in fact quite the opposite.

      "The exercise to translate an arbitrary flow diagram more or less mechanically into a jump-less one, however, is not to be recommended. Then the resulting flow diagram cannot be expected to be more transparent than the original one. "

      You have to understand when he wrote that paper people were doing what we would do know as while loops and switch statements with goto. He was arguing for alternatives like those.

      Using goto as a method of doing exception handling in a situation where you either don't have or want to avoid higher level structured exception handling is a reasonable approach.

      David Tribble has a good analysis of the article and opinions about modern use of goto:
      http://david.tribble.com/text/goto.html

    2. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      f*** that. goto is useful. I really wish python had a goto when I have to break out of deeply nested logic. The other solution, using generators and a lot of functions is a pain in my ass. Plus, I have to pass around messages to make sure that I have the information in the right state. I know this happens in C too, where goto exists but is condemned. goto is useful and should be used as needed.

    3. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by trybywrench · · Score: 1

      my C programming prof in college told us he would fail anyone who dared use a "goto" in any program during his class. I could tell he was serious because hte more he talked about it the angrier he got. It got to the point to where he was basically yelling at the class about how we better not use a goto. He was an industry guy turned prof so I guess he must have had a bad experience or something.

      --
      I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
    4. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by mweier · · Score: 1

      10 print "goto rules"
      20 goto 10

      --
      digital artist, 3D animator, web designer, and otherwise technological creative type....
    5. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I think we should all remember that just because Google is the pinnacle of success and is second only to (insert your diety here), Google too can make mistakes.

      Bill Gates called and says that he doesn't make any mistakes - everything you perceive to be wrong is a planned strategy in motion.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    6. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by grumbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ### I'm disappointed by Google's use of the 'goto' keyword.

      While goto is often better avoided, a call like "goto error;" is among the perfectly valid uses of goto, since it actually can make code more clear and logical then code without goto. Such use of goto is really no different then exceptions in C++, simply a way to get to the place that handles the error conditions without having to painfully drag error-variables through the code.

    7. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fools!!!! Goto is merely an embodiment of the assembler jump commands. Do and for loops are from satan. They do not exist in machine langauge. GOTO does. You are from satan. Down with loops. Three cheers for branching.

    8. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by jalet · · Score: 1

      well, you should learn about Python's exceptions then...

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    9. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by andr386 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why this post hasn't bee modded insigthfull.

      It's often better to handle errors at the same place and use goto in the error-detection. It's even called a "good practice" by many people.

      It helps avoiding even more evil stuffs like putting return everywhere in the code !!! That is EVIL !!!

    10. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, I've seen those people. They are on ego trips. They think they know everything about everything and because they saw someone mention that "goto is evil" on teh Intarweb they think no one should use it. They are morans.

      goto is an extremely useful tool. It shouldn't be abused but is useful nonetheless (exception handling in plain C code is one example).

    11. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Pete · · Score: 1

      Heh. Just for that, I'd write all my code using variable and function names like go2, go_to, gotwo, gotoo... etc.

      Ahh, endless juvenile humour. Anyway, sounds like that professor shouldn't have been teaching C. I bet he was happy when Java starting getting popular. "Ahh... sweet Java eases the pain..." :-)

    12. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I prefer to issue the command "DO COME FROM".

    13. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Misgiven · · Score: 1

      Tell that to my boss!

    14. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by R.D.Olivaw · · Score: 1

      I was very insterested in your comment until I noticed that you used (insert your diety here) instead of the programmers firendly $diety

    15. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by torokun · · Score: 1


      This is a standard, and sometimes good, way to do error handling in C, or cpp without exceptions.

      Without going into it too much, it can be more efficient and practical in certain cases. Limited to such error handling, it's not really that bad, it's just old-skool.

    16. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Peyna · · Score: 2, Funny

      They are morans.

      I believe the correct term would be "Moranians," but are you referring to people from Moran, Kansas; Moran, Michigan; Moran, Texas; or Moran, Wyoming?

      --
      What?
    17. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Troed · · Score: 1
      ... because it isn't.


      err = method1();
      if(!err)
      {
      err = method2();
      }
      if(!err)
      {
      err = method3();
      }
      if(err)
      {
      dealWithErrors();
      }
      return err;

      ... extend as you please, but this is the general idea and good practise.

    18. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Zebedeu · · Score: 2, Funny

      or the even more standard $deity

    19. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Eudial · · Score: 1

      Seriously, some times goto can be a whole lot better than the alternatives. Try bailing out of some 5 levels of loops without goto and you will see what i mean.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    20. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      what if...

      #define marklar goto

      marklar error; // ? Why not? No more goto statement!

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    21. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by waterford0069 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      _My_ C programming prof once used a "goto" in an example in class, only to look up and see a room full of students with their mouths hanging open.

      He quickly pointed out that the reason why goto's are highly discourage (especially to newbies) is that it is often missused (leading to spagettie code). He also pointed out that that single "goto" made the code block he was deomonstrating so much easier to understand (and probablty more efficient processor wise) than the "pure" way, where he would have had to litter the code block with "if"s and add conditions to other flow controls.

      And when you go through the exercise of writing the same block of code without the "goto", you get a dog's breakfast. He was right, the "goto" made the code better, in all respects.

      He then finished this little sub lesson with the words "Look!!! I'm running with scissors!". The point being that once you get to a certain level and truely understand the reprecutions, you can take certain "short cuts" and break certain rules that are the programing equivalent of training wheels.

      btw... Hi Al!

    22. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Zordak · · Score: 1
      the use of 'goto' leads to "swiss-cheesing" of the brain, the inability to think logically, and a plethora of other problems, leading eventually to brain-rot and inability to write code in anything but Perl.
      Quiche Eater
      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    23. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by bgbarcus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Such use of goto is really no different then
      > exceptions in C++
      >
      Using goto is a great way to create memory leaks. C++ exceptions guarantee that all objects going out of scope have their destructors invoked to allow resource deallocation.

    24. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      I suggest you don't look at the Linux source anytime soon then. Riddled with gotos. While I agree that it should be avoided, goto makes a few things easier:

      1)C and C++ lack the ability to break from inner loops to the outside of a loop, or to continue on the outer loop. Gettign around that without goto requires adding new variables to keep the breakout status, and if statements on that variable. Possibly multiple ones, if we're breaking multiple loops. Or you can use 1 goto.

      2)Sometimes its easier to jump to the return and cleanup part of a function, rather than rewrite the cleanup code multiple times. This is similar to exception handling, but doesn't have all the overhead of normal exceptions and doesn't have negative effects on calling functions.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    25. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by DrSpotter · · Score: 1

      If you look at the patch you can see that the 'error' label already existed and this patch just adds another section that ends up 'goto'ing it.

      So, they've not introduced anything, just extended a function in the least intrusive way, and it's no more harmful than the VLC project originally intended.

      --
      Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after.
    26. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by lp_bugman · · Score: 1

      This is not always as easy :

      if( (fd = fopen( "myfile.txt", "a" )) != NULL ) {
      if( read_size = (fread( &buffer, 1L, 255L, fd )) != 0 ) ){
      if( (fd_out = fopen( "myfileOut.txt", "w")) != NULL ) {
      if( fwrite( &buffer, 1L, read_size, fd_out ) != 0) ) {
      printf( "write ok\n");
      }
      fclose( fd_out );
      }
      }
      fclose( fd);
      }

      As you see you sometimes need more validation than just knowing that there was an error. You need to be hable to "rollback" changes like making sure al file descriptors get closed.

      --
      BSD licensed software can't be stolen....
    27. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by n+xnezn+juber · · Score: 1

      Ah... but heap objects never go out of scope. So unless everywhere that an exception can be thrown is free from heap allocations, you might be in trouble either way. Or rather if you've coded it well, you won't have leaks either way.

    28. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it is not good practice. The reason is that if there is an error in method1(), why is your program going through any more code instead of going directly to the dealWithErrors() routine?

      In your style, you are either going to place all the local variables used by method1, method2 and method3 (for return values and parameters) at the top of the function method1() which is bad style or you are going to place them as soon as they are needed which would be just outside the if(!err) statements. Like if method2 returns an object that gets passed to method3, you would declare the variable before the if(!err) just before method2().

      Now if there is an error in method1(), why would you want to go through construction of the object that only method2 and method3 need?

    29. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by measure · · Score: 1

      The use of goto for error cases seem fine when writing the code, the problem comes when you are maintaining it. Puzzle: what is wrong? void puzzle() { a = new... if (failure) goto cleanup: b = new... if (failure) goto cleanup: delete b; cleanup: delete a; return; }

    30. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really simple: goto backwards is bad, goto forward is ok.

      I.e., if the goto statement takes you back to a previous point in your function/block of code, it's bad. If the goto statement makes you just skip over some code, especially to go to near the end of your function/block where cleanup is done, it's ok.

    31. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Well, you know, the trouble with David...

      No, that's not quite right. Something about multiplying uncontrollably? But that's the other operator, not the /...

      The fortune is surprisingly appropriate (and might be where I got the idea): "Extreme feminine beauty is always disturbing. -- Spock, "The Cloud Minders", stardate 5818.4"

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    32. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Troed · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I don't see the problem. Please post an example you consider to "break" the practice I posted.

      (Declaring variables is not a problem. If they're big you're only declaring a pointer and allocating memory in the correct context anyway)

    33. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Troed · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What I see in your code are two places you do cleanup (and no goto). Anyway:


      fd = fopen("myfile.txt", "a");
      if(fd)
      {
      read_size = fread(&buffer, 1L, 255L, fd);
      }
      if(fd && (read_size > 0))
      {
      int err;
      fd_out = fopen("myfileOut.txt", "w");
      if(fd_out)
      {
      err = fwrite(&buffer, 1L, read_size, fd_out);
      }
      if(fd_out && (err > 0))
      {
      printf("write ok\n");
      }
      if(fd_out)
      {
      fclose(fd_out);
      }
      }
      if(fd)
      {
      fclose(fd);
      }


      I did this quite fast but I think it'll perform exactly the same thing - and you'll avoid indentation hell. The new code also looks longer than it is due to where I put the braces.

    34. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every line of code that you don't need to do the job is a line that is a potential bug. The point is that instead of immediately jumping to the error handler, you're adding unnecessary complexity to the program flow graph.

      Take this example:

      {
      int arrSize;
      int err = getMaxSize(&arrSize);

      vector[string] dataVec(arrSize); // [] = lt,gt
      if(!err) {
      err = fillVec(dataVec);
      }

      if(!err) {
      err = parseVec(dataVec);
      }

      if(err) {
      puts("Oops\n");
      }

      }

      This is the example I'm talking about where you want to declare dataVec as late as possible but you then have to worry about how you construct it because if(err) then arrSize is garbage. For vector you can call resize(arrSize) inside an if(!err) but how about other more complicated classes? By the way, you can't simply initialize arrSize to 0 because you don't have the defined behavior of getMaxSize when there is an error. The constructor becomes a major problem. You have to now worry about every single object that is created and how it is constructed and where.

    35. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Troed · · Score: 1

      You're talking about C++? Then you should use exceptions. The discussion was about C, and the use of goto to do single-point error handling. Please look up the other answer I gave to someone who posted code my practice supposedly shouldn't be able to handle (it's in the same thread as we're posting in now).

      What I was looking for was C-code using goto that I shouldn't be able to rewrite like this. I'm still searching :)

    36. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody will tell you that your style is not able to do something. They are trying to tell you that due to the extra code your program has to go through during an error that it is an inferior style. Since you advocate removing goto I am sure you'd agree that any program with goto can be replaced with a more structured control flow. The converse is also true. The question at hand is which is better and more importantly, why? I have tried to explain why not using gotos may be inferior. You simply want to state that gotos are not necessary. We're talking on two entirely different levels.

      If your frame of mind is so concrete that you think my example was specific to C++, replace a constructor with an object initialization routing. I think you need to look at the bigger picture here. Again now you have to have a condition that checks for an error in any previous stage before you intialize your local variables. By using goto you don't care about the rest of the code when there is an error. You can bypass everything and immediately go to the cleanup. I find it almost comical that if you're using C++ you recommend exceptions but if you're using C you recommend against goto.

      The principle that I have stated which has simply gone over your head is this:

      Keep your program flow as simple as possible, but no simpler. (Keep It Simple Stupid).

      Continuously checking for error values AND having to check if any previous error was detected is both time consuming from a code writing perspective and error prone do to the number of possible errors that must be bypassed in the later code.

      If you want to continue this discussion I'd suggest you explain why gotos are never good and why your structured approach is better. Also please explain why you think exceptions in C++ is a recommended error checking style and specifically how they are better than gotos in C. By the way, as a hint remember that C does not have constructors.

    37. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Troed · · Score: 1

      I must question whether you've automatically assumed everything above or if you've really tested it. The flow does _not_ become more complicated (goto messes it up a lot more) - and the variables I need to keep track of are exactly the same that I would need to check in the goto:ed codeblock anyway to know what should be cleaned up and what shouldn't.

      By the way, as a hint remember that C does not have constructors

      That was the whole point of my previous reply :)

      Using goto to break flow makes your code _more_ likely to contain resource leaks. Since my profession is telecom/embedded I might automatically think more about those cases than most.

    38. Re:goto considered harmful !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you responded but not glad that you are not answering the question. Suppose you draw a CDFG of your program. Consider a case with goto and a case like yours where every line has to check if a previous line has an error. In my goto suggestion, when a program has an error, there is an edge directly to the error state. In your case, regardless of an error, it has to go through every single branch point around each of your routine calls. The complexity of each branch adds another variable to the CDFG not only for your err value but for every other variable defined. If we're talking about peformance, each branch should be considered as a performance hit. Even the most basic microcontrollers and microprocessors are pipelined these days. If you are truly in embedded systems you'll recognize this factor. It is not something that a compiler will optimize away.

      Are you asking if I have tested my assertions by writing code? I already have your example with which to base my statements. It also helps that I write compilers for a living (specifically logic synthesis compilers). In the past I worked on a compiler for a 32-bit microcontroller. So I think of program complexity a little more than most.

      I'm still waiting to find why you think exceptions are recommended in C++ but gotos are not acceptable in C.

      I'm also very interested in why you think gotos make leaks more likely. Let's suppose the error handling code is identical in both because the variables that need to be kept track of are identical (your assertion, not mine). I suggest that leaks are more of a problem with your style because each of your object initializations must be protected by an if(!err) branch. Any typo that skips an if(!err) will cause serious problems in the call to your initialization. Invalid initializations can cause any number of problems: leaks, core dumps, program errors. With gotos, the initialization can be entirely bypassed. Every way you slice it, your style puts more places for errors to be introduced into your program's flow.

      Cheers.

  22. It's really disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you check out the blog, you'll see that there's a nice goto at the end of the if statement.

    Supposedly Google only hires top-coders, so what's up with that?

    1. Re:It's really disappointing by Quill_28 · · Score: 2, Informative

      goto when used correctly can simplify code and make it easier to read.

      Most colleges just say never use it because so many people turn out horrible code by using too many or misusing the goto statement.

    2. Re:It's really disappointing by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Nothing's up with that. One of the cases where goto works nicely.

      Of course, there's no reason to believe that Google only hires "top-coders" but this isn't evidence to the contrary.

    3. Re:It's really disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, since only morons would ever use goto, please submit your goto-less version of the TCP input routine in the BSD IP stack.

      Not so easy, eh?

    4. Re:It's really disappointing by Peyna · · Score: 1

      You do realize, that in the end when it is compiled/interpretted whatever, chances are all your fancywork becomes a bunch of goto statements anyway?

      --
      What?
    5. Re:It's really disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ya know something? for years, i have been one of those 'goto-less' programming fanatics...

      the other day, someone asked me for a bit of help writing a VBA macro (shudder)... it's been a while since i touched VBA, and i dropped back into my standard "how would i put this together in assembly" mode of generic syntax layering...

      lo, and behold -- there was a place where i wanted to put in a JZ command... and it translated into a :

      ...
      If (IsEmpty(ActiveCell)) Then GoTo done
      ...
      done:
      'show the results of our hard work
      Worksheets("Dest").Activate
      Application.ScreenUpdating = True
      End Sub

      when i looked at the finished product, i was horrified to note that i had broken a cardinal rule, and used a dreaded goto... but it was the most efficient way to put the code together, so i left it.

      any time that you are tempted to go off on the use of the evil goto, remember:

      1. most compilers don't require line numbers, any more (this is one of the things that made the use of goto a major source of spaghetti code, in the past)
      2. life would be a bit more difficult, in the coding world, without op codes like JMP, JNE, JZ, &c. ... and they're all goto's
    6. Re:It's really disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goto is forbidden in programming the same way that 2-3 is forbidden in math. It confuses beginners. Once people can write readable programs without using gotos, it's time to teach them how and when to use gotos to *improve* readability.

      If you were always taught "gotos considered harmfull", you never got past the entry level. Just like if you were always taught "2-3 is impossible", you never got past first grade math.

    7. Re:It's really disappointing by Albert+Sandberg · · Score: 1

      And you can't "hide" the code in the middle by using the following: ...
      if (!IsEmpty(ActiveCell)) {

      } // done: ...

      Of course...

      I never used gotos since I coded gw basic...

    8. Re:It's really disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that top notch programmers are not stupid enough to buy into that "goto" is evil bullshit.

      I am sick of the frigging cult that FUd has had with it for years... GOTO has a friggin use, and if you could actually code in a real language like assembly then you HAVE to use goto's.

      JMP is a FRICKING GOTO you no skills wannabe coder.

    9. Re:It's really disappointing by tallniel · · Score: 1
      If you check out the blog, you'll see that there's a nice goto at the end of the if statement. Supposedly Google only hires top-coders, so what's up with that?

      Lots of C-coders use goto in this situation where you want to exit a function early but need to do some cleanup first. It's often considered an acceptable exception to the no-goto rule, as the alternative is usually even more unreadable. Think of it as a work-around for the lack of a try-catch-finally construct. e.g., where in Java you might use:

      // Allocate some resource...
      ...
      try {
      // Do stuff
      if (someErrorCondition) throw new SomeException;
      } finally {
      // Release resource
      }

      In C, you'd do:

      /* Allocate some resource... */
      ...
      code = OK;
      if (someErrorCondition) {
      code = ERROR;
      goto error;
      }
      ...
      error:
      /* Release resource */
      ...
      return code;

      That way, all code goes through the same exit point and the same cleanup code. Not ideal, but then neither is C.

    10. Re:It's really disappointing by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      So? What's your point?

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    11. Re:It's really disappointing by reverius · · Score: 1

      Of -course- all your fancywork becomes goto statements.

      I have two instructions for you:
      jump.
      jump and link.

      Assembly code consists of a bunch of math followed by a bunch of jumping to another memory location. Rinse and repeat.

    12. Re:It's really disappointing by LarsWestergren · · Score: 1
      Think of it as a work-around for the lack of a try-catch-finally construct. e.g., where in Java you might use:
      // Allocate some resource... ...
      try { // Do stuff
      if (someErrorCondition) throw new SomeException;
      } finally { // Release resource
      }



      Are you sure that compiles in Java? It looks more like C#, which allows finally blocks without catch.

      Even if you somehow get it to compile, if you throw a new Exception there the excecution won't go through the clean up code in the finally block.
      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    13. Re:It's really disappointing by tallniel · · Score: 2, Informative
      Are you sure that compiles in Java? It looks more like C#, which allows finally blocks without catch.
      Even if you somehow get it to compile, if you throw a new Exception there the excecution won't go through the clean up code in the finally block.

      It's valid Java. You can specify a finally block with no catch blocks. A finally block will always be run, even if an exception is thrown (the exception will still propagate). For example, I sometimes mark undergraduate concurrency coursework/exams written in Java. try-finally blocks are used there to ensure correct lock management:

      lock.acquire();
      try {
      // Do stuff...
      } finally {
      lock.release();
      }
    14. Re:It's really disappointing by LarsWestergren · · Score: 1

      Thanks for clearing that up.

      Darn, I need to go back and refresh exceptions handling. I ought to know this stuff by heart, I passed the Sun Certified Programmer exam.

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

  23. What a fabulous idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Various anti-piracy groups are pressuring congress to pass an extention to the DMCA laws, which will effectively outlaw commenting out parts of computer code. Under the new law it will also be illegal to manufacture a computer keyboard with the forward slash '/' key.

    What a fabulous idea! I'll get right on it!

    Thanks,
    Sen. Orrin Hatch

    1. Re:What a fabulous idea! by AVryhof · · Score: 1

      In other News, the mathematical operations known as division and fractions has been outlawed due to the use of the "/" character. A Spokesperson for one of the corporations wthat pushed for this restriction says "Sure, there are other operators for division, and the forward slash is used in other places, but we don't care, it is infringing upon our desire for revenue."
      Casio, Texas Instrument, and a number of other manufacturers of pocket calculation devices are planning to appeal.
      --
      Random Signature #1
      Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

    2. Re:What a fabulous idea! by KDR_11k · · Score: 4, Funny

      A statement issued by Microsoft Corp. insists that "We knew all along that the backslash (\) is far superior to the UNIX alternative. This proves again: Windows has a lower TCO than Linux or any other UNIX".

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  24. In related Yahoo! news... by VeganBob · · Score: 4, Funny

    "DVD Jon cracks MythTV to record video from a TV Tuner"

    --
    Being funny is my sig nature.
    1. Re:In related Yahoo! news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will revolutionize computing!

    2. Re:In related Yahoo! news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would actually be a pretty good crack, seeing as how I've been unable to get it to record anything.

    3. Re:In related Yahoo! news... by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Could this mean the end of Windows as we know it?

      --
      For more information, click here.
  25. Source code? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Is this more or less what he did?

    Before:

    if(!running_on_google())

    After:

    // if(!running_on_google())

    1. Re:Source code? by KillerBob · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://code.google.com/patches.html

      With that link, and a little knowhow, you, too, can crack the code and make your own Google Video viewer. The upshot is that you can compile it for Linux (Google has only released it for Windows). The downshot is that I'm surprised it took Jon so long to make the change. :)

      It's not like it was hard to find... go to http://video.google.com/ click on "Install", and then click on "Get the source code". It's under "patches".

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    2. Re:Source code? by dionoea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some parts of the patch (the interesting one and mime types) have already been commited to VLC trunk. Nightly builds (http://vthr.videolan.org/~videolan) compiled tonight will surely ba able to play google video content.

    3. Re:Source code? by chrisd · · Score: 1
      That's so cool. I love free software.

      Chris

      --
      Co-Editor, Open Sources
      Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
    4. Re:Source code? by GoogleGuy · · Score: 1

      Nice. Very nice. :)

      So if I understand the Yahoo News story, you can go to http://code.google.com/vlc-diff.txt, around line 389, and comment that out. The patch presumably just makes the change in the executable to comment this out, yah?

  26. Re:SLASHDOT NEWS TOMORROW by elgatozorbas · · Score: 0

    Hope it's not "DVD Jon breaks leg"

  27. Gone too far? by cyngus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I think we all like Jon when he was meddling with "evil" companies. How do we feel now that he is locking horns with the geeks' uncontested favorite company? I'm all for raising a little hell when the intents of a company are less than honorable, but leave the good guys alone. Not to say Google can do not evil, just that they haven't yet.

    1. Re:Gone too far? by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 1

      Ah....he went to far by modifying an open-source app? You must HATE Linux kernal devs ;-)

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    2. Re:Gone too far? by dfghjk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who are "we all"? You think you're a member of some kind of team? Who's to say who's honorable and who are the good guys? This guy did something of interest to him and nothing more. His ideology is simply different than yours and, in his view, google did something sufficiently "evil" (in your words) to merit a response. He doesn't answer to you or to some imaginary "geek community".

    3. Re:Gone too far? by kiwibird · · Score: 1

      First of all: Morals are not absolute. The concept of Evil is not at all easy to define. Google can not be deemed Good as in always, forever and whatever Good; no matter how much open source they release, and no matter how much good (sic) they do for the geek community. They're a corporation like any other, they know that by acting the way they do, they will make a good impression with hackers, and they know that they'll gain a lot more from that than they would by acting microsoftical. But also, they will do / have done less nice things (like using MPEG-4 instead of Ogg Theora in their video player, for one, and that whole Orkut "W3 0wN j00r wR1t1ng"-copyright-thing). No one - and corporations are persons too, in the US, at least - is perfect.

      Second: Jon Lech Johansen is not raising hell. He's modifying an open-source program. It may be against the original intent of the code, but, read it again: it's open-source. You're supposed to hack around in the code, fixing obvious bugs (ehm) like the one Jon fixed. Like others here have pointed out, google wouldn't release it o-s if they didn't know this too.

    4. Re:Gone too far? by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he doesn't even think Google did something "sufficiently evil". Just that for him, this is an interesting excercise in programming and reverse engineering.

      By the way, why does google want to cripple their own software to play only their video but not others? Perhaps they're trying to avoid a fight with the big MS by say, "Don't worry, our media player only plays our stuff, so your's won't be in trouble."

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    5. Re:Gone too far? by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Who determines who are the good guys and bad guys? IMHO, if they're insecure, they're not as good of guys as you might think.

      I applaud him for looking into such concerns for all companies, not just those some people might label as "evil."

      Just because you're fond of a company or person, doesn't mean you should give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to security.

      Think credit card companies. People used to trust them, so they didn't worry about security too much, and figured the credit card companies cared enough about security (since it costs them a lot of money if there is a breach) that they would take care of any problems on their own. Now we know that isn't true. Perhaps if we had been probing them more intensely in the past, such problems could have been fixed at a much earlier stage and before widespread security breaches occurred.

      Some things are too important to rely upon the word or reputation of a company regarding. I'd say security and privacy rank right up there.

      --
      What?
    6. Re:Gone too far? by cyngus · · Score: 1

      Morals are not absolute

      You, sir, make me ill.

      But also, they will do / have done less nice things (like using MPEG-4 instead of Ogg Theora in their video player, for one, and that whole Orkut "W3 0wN j00r wR1t1ng"-copyright-thing).

      They might have also do this because Ogg Theora is even less known than Ogg Vorbis, which, itself is barely on the radar.

      Second: Jon Lech Johansen is not raising hell.

      And, if I'd RTFA I'd probably know that. I assumed he'd hacked it to do something interesting, like circumvent DRM lockouts on some video. Knowing that he only made it so it would play video from other sites is, well, yawn.

    7. Re:Gone too far? by MynockGuano · · Score: 1

      Probably to avoid any issues with other people exploiting a piece of software from their site to show material of questionable content and/or legality. This way, they are only responsible for their own player with their own content. They aren't stupid--they knew how easy it would be to change. But the point is that by restricting the OFFICIAL client to content under their own control, they need not even worry about any third-party complaints or legal troubles (whether they rationally exist or not doesn't matter) regarding the playing of any content that is not provided directly by video.google.com. The user has to make an extra conscious step to do it, and the responsibility is no longer Google's burden to deal with.

    8. Re:Gone too far? by cyngus · · Score: 1

      I think I'm a lot less angry at the world than you, and that is saying something.

      Who's to say who's honorable and who are the good guys?

      Me, of course.

      He doesn't answer to you or to some imaginary "geek community".

      No, he doesn't have any responsibility to anyone and I doubt his actions have ever been an attempt to gain popularity. Which is why the questions I posed were, not "should he have done it", but rather "how do we [the open source and/or linux] community feel about it".

    9. Re:Gone too far? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      First of all: Morals are not absolute. The concept of Evil is not at all easy to define.

      I'd have to disagree with you there. But morals only exist when you have already laid down the fundamental premises of your value system. Say, for example, that your value system includes being the sole beneficiary of your own efforts (unless you decide to give or trade them to someone else). Many "morals" can be derived from something as simple as that, and they are absolute and immutable. It's very easy then, within that moral framework, to say that someone who seeks to deprive you of your life (or the things you produce with your life, such as your work) is evil. Morals are the practical behavioral rules that are derived from the premises from which your values derive. People who say there are no objectively right or wrong things tend to be operating with mixed premises (like, "I am master of my own destiny, but I'm also master of yours, because I know better than you" or, "I am no-one's slave, but when two or more people get together to work on something, they should be everyone's slaves"). Evil is that which seeks to undo, or run counter that which is valued. If your values support a rationale for slavery, then certainly anyone fighting against slavery is evil, from your perspective. If your values abhor slavery, then the opposite is true. So there's not much point talking about evil, but there's a lot to be said for talking about the premises upon which value systems are built. I, for example, hold that the only value that meaningfully exists is that which I create. I can trade what I value for that which other people offer, or I can give it freely (in exchange for the pleasure I may feel in the act), but it's from that basic premise that I derive pretty much every good/bad value judgement. For example: if you try to take away what I value (my life, or any of what I've created with it), then you're evil. If I act contrary to my own values (say, doing the same to someone else), then I'm being evil. Of course, there are more subtle examples (such as when I can use force, because someone, through their actions, have abandoned any claim on the rights that non-evilness buys you), but they are no less objectively absolute for being complex in their practicality.

      All that being said, the term evil is tossed around on slashdot as a fashionable adjective to describe anyone (or group of anyones) that says or does something unliked. To the extent that, say, a company makes money - some people call them evil. To the extent that other people try to block European researchers from working on practical fusion, they're evil (or vice versa, if you're a Greenpeace brainwashee).

      Guys like DVD Jon are a mixed bag. More than anything, he's a traditional hacker - focused on technological challenges as if they were formed in a vacuum. The problem is that most of the challenges he's known for solving revolve around enabling people to alter, after-the-fact, the terms of a contract or transaction. By most objective standards, that would be considered evil. Evil, in the sense of deceitful, or parasitical. One is not "liberating" the creative work of others by altering the means by which the creator secures the work from freeloading. But Jon's moral rudderlessness is apparent when he hacks a bit of open source Google code and changes its behavior to suit his interests. There's no evil there, on the face of it, because of the terms under which he's laid hands on the code. But if he's altering it in a way that allows him to then make use of a service (say, Google video streaming) that is not intended for that sort of use, then he's back on the dark side. By being showy about how quickly he cracks or alters things, he's distracting shallowly-thinking nerds from the moral implications of his acts, and thus obscuring the mixed premises upon which his value system is built. Doesn't mean anything about his technical skills, just means that his motivations are probably contrary to personal interest, whether he'll acknowledge that or not.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:Gone too far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Show me how morals are absolute... and what moral code you're talking about.

      No? Hm.

    11. Re:Gone too far? by cyngus · · Score: 1

      Read Atlas Shrugged.

    12. Re:Gone too far? by cyngus · · Score: 1

      Well, to summarize, morals are absolute, because reality is absolute. Let us assume that life and living is good. If you don't think life and living is good, you're probably not going to around to discuss this much longer. (I don't mean that as an insult, just a fact.) Assuming life is good, all things that promote life are good, all that promote death are evil. This formula may seem simplistic, but logical extension of this will lead you to a course for every decision you have to make. Does what you do cause soceity harm? This is evil, it will eventually lead to the death of everyone. Does what you do cause others, specifically, harm? This is more evil because it is harder to undo a wound against an individual than a society. Does what you do cause yourself harm? This is the most evil, as harming yourself is directly wishing death upon yourself. It is self-mutilation of the body, mind, or soul. All that which does not harm, but rather improves, is good.

    13. Re:Gone too far? by m50d · · Score: 1

      How about taking down people who offered RSS feeds of google news?

      --
      I am trolling
    14. Re:Gone too far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Assume so therefore you fail.

    15. Re:Gone too far? by kiwibird · · Score: 1

      Heh, I see I didn't formulate that sentence very well. Let my try again. There is no way for us human beings full of mistakes to find absolute morals where "absolute" means "true in everyone's eyes" in the same way that 2+2=4 (I'm not going to into discussing any higher values of 2 here). That's why it's so hard to impose your morals onto others. I'm not at all saying one shouldn't follow one's morals for one's own sake, but to divide something into universally Good and Evil is too simplistic, especially when thinking of why someone else chose to do something.

    16. Re:Gone too far? by kiwibird · · Score: 1

      morals only exist when you have already laid down the fundamental premises of your value system

      Ergo, they are not universal laws for us to discover. That was my meaning of "absolute", and also the reason for me objecting to the universal definition Google = Good & Hacking Google Code = Bad. As for the rest of what you said there, I think I just have to agree. I've never found any point in going with the "what's right for them"-line of thought, because - I feel that - you as a person have a right to act on your moral values, while understanding that others will have different value systems. The search for the Right ethics is not in vain, it will just never result in anything that can be absolutely proven.

      As regards the Google, I still stand by my view that They Knew What They Were Doing When They Went With Open Source. And what they knew was this: No one outside the two Yahoo-readers with .NET and the Slashdot-crowd are going to bother using that patch (possibly an overstatement, but you get the point: Google is a tank opening the window a crack and not caring about the fly that flew in to hack).

    17. Re:Gone too far? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Ergo, they are not universal laws for us to discover

      Well, I might even disagree with you there, too.

      In short (certainly shorter than my last comment!), I'd say that certain value systems are demonstrably irrational. Thus, any morals that derive from them are irrational at best, or possibly even evil in an absolute sense - because of how it encourages that confused person to act in the presence of other people.

      For example, if someone's premise is that the universe is run by magical frogs that insist we all die as soon as possible, and that only therein does life have meaning... well, there you have it. A value system that says life only has meaning in death is, fundamentally, objectively, crazy. I don't have any problem saying that any moral system derived from that world view is inherently, absolutely, objectively bad. Needless to say, that covers a lot of ground, including a lot of organized religions, and thus possibly the majority of the world's population. Of course, when you boil it down to the "life only means something in death" argument, those folks have to insert a magic frog (or an imaginary, feel-good afterlife) in order allow their basically rational to brains explain away a fundamentally flawed premise. At some level, all such people know they're working on a shaky foundation, so there's a bunch of self-denial baggage along for the ride to mask the logical flaws. It's those folks who most loudly trumpet moral relativism (or magic forgiveness) to get them past what their reason keeps trying to whisper to them.

      Yes, this even applies to Google. People who like them because they're less Microsofty than Microsoft are still just splitting hairs. They're a company of people that exist to make money for themselves and their investors. They are very smart, and know how to appeal to people like DVD Jon (or how to placate his fans on slashdot), but at the end of the day, they're basing their corporate moral framework on reason. In some ways, corporate morals have the prospect of being more rational than individual ones... mostly because the corporation doesn't have the sure knowledge of its own eventual mortality, and doesn't use magical thinking to invent a lifestyle or mythology that takes away some of that fear. There, now that should get some flames going!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    18. Re:Gone too far? by kiwibird · · Score: 1

      Hmm, well, I personally do not believe that morality boils down to rationality. Corporate morals may be rational, but if your main goal is to raise shareholder value, then it doesn't matter how rational your way of reaching that goal. Of course if there's a logical flaw in your moral system, then, well, the system is flawed, it's not worthwhile. But morals can't be found by just applying rational thought without searching for the underlying values. Even in a value-system where "death to all humanity" is the goal, there has to be some (messed up) values underlying that goal. You can't _prove_ that those values are wrong though, you can only point out why some values seem better (most of us would like to live, and live well). You can find an error in the reasoning from the value-system which says that "death is beautiful" to the goal "humanity must die" (or whatever the line of reasoning was), but you can't prove that death is not better. You can disagree with the fundamental values, or try to expand upon them and somehow change what the reasoning that comes from them turns into, but how would you deduct what is meaningful in life/death, whether God is a magic frog who tricked us into wasting time over this on slashdot etc. I believe morals need actual complex life experience, and that those values and the reasoning out from them are things you have to be constantly trying to improve on. The complexity of all life makes it impossible to deem a moral system evil. It may be flawed, misunderstood, egotistical or founded on illusions, all of these are different descriptions which have meaning to them. "Evil", on the other hand, tells you nothing other than that it's (founded on) something you don't like. Someone with a different moral system might deem you or me (or our values) "evil", how does that bring any light to a discussion?

      I don't see that I'm getting any deeper in this discussion though, sorry if this was rambling a bit. And probably very, very offtopic.

  28. Google viewer system requirements by alienmole · · Score: 1

    Does the Google video viewer even run on your Win98 system? The system requirements say that it requires "Windows 2000 or later with latest updates installed".

  29. Too many clicks and chunks there by DeadSea · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Given code like this:
    if(conditional){
    do();
    some();
    stuff();
    }

    A real hacker would do something like this:

    if(0&&conditional){
    do();
    some();
    stuff();
    }
    (3 added characters)

    or at the very least:

    /*if(conditional){
    do();
    some();
    stuff();
    }*/
    (4 added characters)

    Currency converter with free form text entry of conversion amounts and currencies

    1. Re:Too many clicks and chunks there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      depends on the native indenting style

      if the code was

      if ( conditional )
      {
      do();
      some();
      stuff();
      }

      then a slash slash could be used to activate the code every time

      //if ( conditional )
      {
      do();
      some();
      stuff();
      }

    2. Re:Too many clicks and chunks there by Eccles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A single ampersand will do a bitwise AND with 0 -- which is always 0 -- so you can actually do it with just two added characters.

      Does this make me a master hacker?

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    3. Re:Too many clicks and chunks there by CaseyB · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I haven't got a C compiler in front of me, I think this would work. (1 character):

      if(conditional); {
      do();
      some();
      stuff();
      }
    4. Re:Too many clicks and chunks there by CaseyB · · Score: 2, Informative

      Doh! If it did work it would do the opposite of what we want.

    5. Re:Too many clicks and chunks there by WillerZ · · Score: 1

      It would on both counts.

      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
    6. Re:Too many clicks and chunks there by DeadSea · · Score: 1

      Truly, I bow to you. You upstanding character is one better than mine.

    7. Re:Too many clicks and chunks there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would compile, but the block would always, rather than never, be executed. Nice try though.

    8. Re:Too many clicks and chunks there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol s/f/PWNED! j00 r teh 1337 hax0r, d00d!!!!!!!!

    9. Re:Too many clicks and chunks there by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1
      How about:
      if(!conditional){
      do();
      some();
      stuff();
      }
      1 added character.
      --
      ^_^
    10. Re:Too many clicks and chunks there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure hope some of you aren't actually writing code that is being used by anyone.

    11. Re:Too many clicks and chunks there by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Except that would reverse it rather than negate it,so you'd be able to do what you weren't supposed to, but might have problems doing what you ARE supopsed to be able to.

    12. Re:Too many clicks and chunks there by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but if it's a condition stating something like "I'm registered", you just need to stay unregistered and u'll be fine :)

      --
      ^_^
  30. In Defense... by BioCS.Nerd · · Score: 5, Informative

    In his defense though, it's the news source, Yahoo, sensationalizing his mods and not his own blog entry (i.e. he doesn't claim that this is some grand crack). His candor in his blog entry doesn't even hold up to the grandiose imagery of a scheming, brilliant hacker striking another blow against "the man" as painted by Yahoo. I actually feel sort of sorry for the guy given the magnitude of the patch being so inflated.

    1. Re:In Defense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In defense of Yahoo, they're just "mirroring" (if you will) a story that eWeek has up. It's not like some guy at Yahoo wrote it.

  31. Next on the sensationalist news networks: by Pennywisdom2099 · · Score: 1

    This little known hacker tool is responsible for cracking Google's video player. See how it could affect your computer's security, tonight at 11!

    1. Re:Next on the sensationalist news networks: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And...could it happen in our area?? Find out after this!

    2. Re:Next on the sensationalist news networks: by LoraxLorax · · Score: 1

      Terrorists found to profit from cracked video players: feature at 11:30.

  32. "Do No Evil" by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or they will more intelligently do neither saying "Anyone can modify our open source client to do whatever they want, for whatever reason they want."

    Do you really think google doens't understand open source?


    I think you make a very good point. This is perhaps more of an example of Google "doing no evil", creating a tool that, by default, for most casual users, promotes their video feed, while at the same time using a good free software project that allows those who want to, to bypass this setting.

    If most people find the restriction onerous, they'll download a patched version (probably from websites that are also offering video). Social and market dynamics can take care of the rest. It seems a fairly reasonable position for Google to take ("we'll try this restriction, and if people really find it offensive, they'll modify the source and outcompete our offering, and we can write it off to experience and not try imposing these sorts of restrictions again. Either way, it probably won't affect our video feed business much.")

    I doubt very much it is incompetence--google has much of the best talent around--nor is it a lack of understanding opensource/free software on the part of google, as they've been active in the community for many years.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:"Do No Evil" by nil0lab · · Score: 1

      > > Do you really think google doens't understand open source?

      > I doubt very much it is incompetence--google has much of the > best talent around--...

      Well, they have been growing lately, and the intelligence of
      a group is well known to be in inverse proportion to its
      size. ;-)

  33. DVD Jon? by part_of_you · · Score: 0

    I get the impression from the name "DVD Jon" that this guy is really good at perhaps hacking code for the use of some media device. So why is adding "//" to impressive? Surely he has done better in the past.

    1. Re:DVD Jon? by shobadobs · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'MMM so sorry that this isn't impressive. But let me tell you the whole story.

      What actually happened was that in his childhood, DVD Jon built a complex delegatized neural net and spent years and years of his life in a special metaphortion of a monastary, training this neural net to intelligently download software, recognize unnecessary restrictions, and figure out how to remove them. This neural net had completed numerous feats, when one day, it found this Google product that had some arbitrary domain restriction. After billions and billions of possibly nondeterministic computations, this neural net commented out a little bit of source code.

      Then this neural net posted on his blog about how he altered an open source product.

      The end.

    2. Re:DVD Jon? by part_of_you · · Score: 0
      Wow, what a waste.

      ...and I thought that I was masterbating to much.

  34. Re:SLASHDOT NEWS TOMORROW by Gentoo+Fan · · Score: 2, Funny

    "DVD Jon" breaks wind, Yahoo! news is there!

  35. now if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jon could turn his attention to the m$ drm
    we'd all be glad

    hate that format and hate not being able to
    convert it into ex.xvid

    especially pw protected wmv's

  36. All video now offline! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Video is currently not available" is appearing on every video clip I can find on video.google.com

    Coincidence?

    1. Re:All video now offline! by Jecel+Assumpcao+Jr · · Score: 1

      There are two different services in that web site: hosting video which can be downloaded and searching through external video (this has been available for some time now). There isn't much local content yet so you are unlikely to run across it in a random search. Online videos have a little triangle beside the title that you can click on to watch the movie. Try one of their suggested searches, like "capoeira" and you will see that they haven't taken anything offline.

  37. Interesting by Sheepdot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google RSS feeds:
    Google releases Google Maps
    Google releases Google Desktop Search
    Google releases Google Web Accelerator
    Google releases Google Video

    Yahoo RSS feeds:
    Are Google Maps an invasion of your privacy?
    Is Google Desktop Search working *too* well?
    All about your privacy and Google Web Accelerator: The secret agenda.
    Google Video cracked within 24 hours. And privacy.

    1. Re:Interesting by generic-man · · Score: 1

      You should read the Yahoo Search Blog then.

      Yahoo is not a news agency. If you're going to go after someone for criticizing Google, attack the AP or Reuters.

      --
      For more information, click here.
  38. I wanted to post something attempting wit by suitepotato · · Score: 1

    but I'm too busy trying to stifle my laughter at the multi-layered irony of this legend taking, what, all of five minutes to break this. On top of it being for Windows. On top of it being based on VLC which is OSS. On top of that being yet again done by Google (why is the new demigod of the OSS world Google when Google is so relentlessly Windows-centric?). On top of what he did being trivial for most coders and more so for him. On top of the insane volume of squaking about it.

    Want DRM? Write a closed souce undocumented codec from the ground up and closed source apps to play things recorded with it. Want to skate by on the cheap and use existing well known standards and even be so insane as to use OSS? Well...

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    1. Re:I wanted to post something attempting wit by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      He modified, freely available, open-source code, that hadn't had any attempt at being obfuscated made upon it; whoop-dee-freaking-doo.

      I very very much doubt google gives a flying stuff about this patch, and if you actually read the code you would see it's no attempt at DRM at all.

      In fact I'm not even sure why google bothered to make it so as to only be able to view videos from their domain, hardly hurting them for people to be using a plugin they developed to view other peoples video, just gets people more used to the google brandname.

    2. Re:I wanted to post something attempting wit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -(why is the new demigod of the OSS world Google -when Google is so relentlessly Windows-centric?)

      Why is the other demi-god of geekdom one of the most proprietary companies around: Apple ?

      Because Linux is like wearing a Che shirt: besides wearing the shirt, there aint much real conviction there. OSS sounds good in principle but as soon as Jobs craps out another piece of over-priced and over-hyped hardware, OSS geeks will fawn over the closed source kings.

  39. Interesting to see.... by wild_berry · · Score: 1

    "Google no longer following 'don't be evil' mantra" headlines?

  40. Creating a Loveable Monster by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Jon would be as motivated in demonstrating how easy it is to crack trivial industry DRM if he hadn't been persecuted for his legit work as a kid. It's a good thing they didn't send him to Guantanamo, or this country would be in more trouble than Hollywood.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Creating a Loveable Monster by LarsG · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing they didn't send him to Guantanamo, or this country would be in more trouble than Hollywood.

      Yeah. It'd be hell on you if we'd have to send norwegian marinejegere over there to bring him back home. ;-)

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    2. Re:Creating a Loveable Monster by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, since you didn't send in the marines to rescue him when he was kidnapped here a few years ago, maybe he's as much a threat to Norwegian DRM as to American.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  41. Some clarifying comments from Jon's blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    # Brian says:
    June 28th, 2005 at 7:01 am

    VLC already has a Mozilla-compatible plug-in. Why do we need the hacked up Google version to play their videos?


    To this Jon replied

    # JonLech says:
    June 29th, 2005 at 6:09 am

    Brian:

    The Mozilla plugin in the latest release (0.8.2) of VLC doesn't include support for the MIME type (application/x-google-vlc-plugin) that Google is using (it has been added to trunk).

    Another difference is that Google is paying patent royalties on both MPEG4 ASP and MPEG4 AVC.

    <snip>


    Kinda makes sense why we need a hack anyway.
  42. What're you even talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else notice that Yahoo Search looks and acts EXACTLY like Google's? (That's probably redudant...)

    Y-ah-oo? What's a Y-ah-oo? Oh Search! I know what search is. You mean Google.

    Yes, it is redundant to say google looks exactly like google ;)

  43. It's like they're asking for it... by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

    Use OSS and Release source code? It looked like Google is just asking people to mod their software.

    --
    In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    1. Re:It's like they're asking for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than likely. It fits with their apparent desire for domination. It's the backwards of the Microsoft model and the dream of the Open Source junkie.

      Google uses their "brand power" to launch a version of a media player. Includes some trivial protection to keep the stiffs happy. Releases the source as per GPL. Geek number 1 breaks the trivial protection, generating interest, people realize there's source code, Geek 2+ begins to develop the program.

      Viola -- instant army of free geeks developing a project that never would have had this much interest or appeal before (if Google pushes their video, you may soon see Google's Video application being a very common program).

      Yes, I realize this is the whole point of Open Source -- but you have to admit it's one of the few times an open source application is facing some possible extreme usage / promotion to the general public.

      If Google pushes it, the geeks update it, it would be one of the only ways to fight against the Windows Media domination.

    2. Re:It's like they're asking for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe they were just complying with the license?

  44. But where are his clones? by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Seriously, does Jon have to do it all? If some states AG gets a burr under his saddle about something like this, they can again incarcerate him and cost him a boatload of sheckles to get clear of it.

    My point is, why does it always have to be 'DVD Jon' that does it, the more contributions by others the merrier the party.

    And this comment from a 70 year old who really ought to be more of an 'establishment' type.

    Realisticly, both patent and copyright has been expanded to protect the guilty until even I can see the falacy of it and its deleterious effects on society and the needless stifling of technological progress.

    --
    Cheers, Gene
    "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
    soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
    -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
    99.35% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly

    1. Re:But where are his clones? by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Maybe others are trying, he just gets it done faster because he's got more experience at it? And after he posts his work, nobody cares if some other guy figures it out and does it independently?

      Lots of software gets cracked, by lots of different people. Most of it doesn't become as high profile as the DeCSS stuff did. Because of all that press back then, everything DVD Jon does is going to get overblown in the media, just like this case.

      There are thousands of software companies, and many of them often release good software, but we tend to just hear lots of noise on /. about Google, Apple, MS, and a few others, because once you've gotten some press, it's a whole lot easier to get more. That's just how the world works.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:But where are his clones? by lxs · · Score: 1

      Building upon his experience with cracking mediocre DRM schemes, DVDJon has produced a copy protection for himself that is so fiendishly clever, that it is impossible to copy DVDJon.

    3. Re:But where are his clones? by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      Chuckle, mod the parent up to funny, thats pretty good.

      --
      Cheers, Gene
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
      soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
      -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
      99.35% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly

    4. Re:But where are his clones? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Reverse engineering is *hard*. Reverse engineering video harder. I know, I've tried. There are few people in the world with the skill to do what he does (not in this case, but in general), and probably fewer with the time and motivation to do it for free. You're also seeing the effects of selective reporting - people make more of a fuss when a "celebrity" hacker like him does something like this than some random foreigner noone's heard of.

      --
      I am trolling
    5. Re:But where are his clones? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      If some states AG gets a burr under his saddle about something like this, they can again incarcerate him and cost him a boatload of sheckles to get clear of it.

      No they can't, since he's not in the States.

      Where he is is the Netherlands which also happens to be the same country where the supreme court ruled that cracking access restrictions like CSS was legal. In fact, it was Jon himself who won that case. So, it would be more than just a little difficult for even the Dutch equivalent of a state AG to incarcerate him there for doing the same thing to newer access restriction systems.

    6. Re:But where are his clones? by MynockGuano · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who just yoinked that hunk out of the patch file along with all of the windows-specific stuff before applying it to their vlc-0.8.2 source download. If I thought it was a big deal and had a webpage to post it to, I might have, but it really didn't seem like anything any other programmer wouldn't do (though Amazon could probably get a patent for the process). Judging from his blog post, he didn't, either. It just happens that his webpage is quite popular and media-type people no doubt camp it like a hawk for easy sensational stories, and when something popped up that looks like it could might maybe possibly start a war between the Open Source community and their beloved Google, they jumped to be the first to break the news. Think of it like a GNAA frist psot, wearing a suit and carrying a microphone.

  45. Google RSS feeds ? by esenterre · · Score: 0

    Oh! Did Google release a RSS news feed ?

  46. Closing the source.... by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

    Distribute some content.

    Modify an open-source player to view it.
    But add restrictions. Distribute the source, too (per GPL).

    Accuse anybody who modifies the source AFTER you have added your restrictions of DMCA violations.

    Demand that all further development of the project stop as it's in violation of DMCA.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    1. Re:Closing the source.... by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      If the source is open anyone should be able to modify it, no? Otherwise they would be in violation of the GPL...

  47. Googleites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of people posting sound a lot like all of the Bushites that seem to lose all ability to reason whenever their beloved president does something they don't agree with.

    First, they ignore it like it doesn't exist.

    Then they try to explain it away or dismiss it as minimal.

    Then they attack those pointing out the error.

    Then they just go insane and spontaneously combust.

  48. i love your exchange rates! by new500 · · Score: 1

    Currency converter with free form text entry of conversion amounts and currencies

    http://coinmill.com/convert/USD_GBP.html?amount=78 6132416392876567415754

    7.8613241639288E+23 United States Dollars
    are worth
    4.34 Pounds Sterling

    now i can afford that Fortune 500 company that's been bugging me with crap products. Lol!

    1. Re:i love your exchange rates! by DeadSea · · Score: 1

      Slashdot: the best source of beta testing trolls. ;-)

      (Thanks for the bug report)

  49. Embracing and Extending by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    Do unto MS as MS does unto you.

    Embrace and Extend them. :)

    --
    I8-D
  50. He's a front, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DVD Jon is the front man for a large group of hackers and crackers. If they come up with something clever, it usually gets released under his name since he's well-known and willing to be the lightning rod.

    In this case, this is a 5-minute hack he just did because he was curious (or perhaps as a mild frown at Google). There was nothing hard or sinister about this one (despite the "news" sites spinning this as if it were similar to the past exploits DVD Jon is known for, which it really is not)

  51. That's easy! by schon · · Score: 1

    please submit your goto-less version of the TCP input routine in the BSD IP stack.

    "s/goto //g"

    Note that you didn't specify that the code had to work afterwards. :o)

  52. The Legend of Jon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jon: Sons of Slashdot. I am DVD Jon.

    Slashdotters: DVD Jon is seven feet tall!

    Joh: Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds! And if he were here, he'd consume the MPAA with fire balls from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse! I am DVD Jon! And I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You've come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do with that freedom? Will you fight?

  53. The program's UUID (OT) by shish · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From Google's patch to VLC:
    - uuid(E23FE9C6-778E-49D4-B537-38FCDE4887D8),
    + uuid(E23FE9C6-778E-49D4-B537-38FCDE4887D9),

    A little offtopic, but who gets to decide these things, to prevent clashes? What's their purpose anyway?

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    1. Re:The program's UUID (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's their purpose anyway?
      It is purpose that created us. Purpose that connects us. Purpose that pulls us, that guides us, that drive us. It is purpose that defines, purpose that binds us.

    2. Re:The program's UUID (OT) by jrcamp · · Score: 2, Informative
      Nobody decides them. That is the entire point of an UUID. It is designed to be unique with a "reasonable confidence".

      Wikipedia knows all.

  54. Switching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... What would the steps be, then, to turn this into the default browser video player plugin for IE, FF, or Opera?

  55. For those that don't get the joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone is familiar with slash fiction, so I'm afraid that joke probably went over a lot of people's heads. Very high 'Dennis Miller' quotient. For the uninitiated, slash fiction is fan fiction of a pornographic nature, usually homosexual, almost always written by bored housewives (from what I hear.) Things like "Kirk/Spock", "Han/Luke", or "CmdrTaco/Hemos". Thus the slash.

  56. Matrix Revolutions is available by chancycat · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did anyone notice the entire Matrix Revolutions is available there in Google Video? Pretty cool. You might think it's just 30-second clips, but hit "Play whole video" and off it goes. Whole movie. Wondering if this is a special "show-off" case google snuck in, or a black-hat's upload?

    see this link for the video

    --
    Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
    1. Re:Matrix Revolutions is available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That beats this Invader Zim video.

    2. Re:Matrix Revolutions is available by Sleuth · · Score: 1

      Wild. And if you click the 'whole video' link it will send you a huge page with preview windows of the first two hours! :-0

      And it clearly states there is 2+ hrs of video...

  57. Found it! :) by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    + // Google mods
    + const char* allowed_host = "video.google.com";
    + char * host_found = strstr(p_sys->url.psz_host, allowed_host);
    + if ((host_found == NULL) ||
    + ((host_found + strlen(allowed_host)) !=
    + (p_sys->url.psz_host + strlen(p_sys->url.psz_host)))) {
    + msg_Warn( p_access, "invalid host, only video.google.com is allowed" );
    + goto error;
    + }
    +

    That's the official part of the google modification (thanks to the guy who pointed to line 389). Now, where was DVD Jon's patch to compare?

    1. Re:Found it! :) by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      That's the official part of the google modification (thanks to the guy who pointed to line 389). Now, where was DVD Jon's patch to compare?

      It's in his blog.... but probably the easiest way to do it is to change this:
      + goto error;

      To this:
      + // goto error;

      If you do that, it'll still pop up the invalid host error, but it'll continue and play anyway. If you want to get rid of the invalid host error, comment out the previous line, too.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
  58. Does the player even work? by Aidtopia · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised people are already trying to do things with the player. I can't even get the thing to run. It just hangs Firefox. I'm on a stock machine that meets all the system requirements.

    This is one time I regret having tabbed browsing, as now I lose my context in several places rather than just the instance that the Google player hosed.

    1. Re:Does the player even work? by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 1

      Grab the session saver plugin. Even after a crash you can sometimes (always if you make a manual capture) pop right back where you were.

  59. Re:SLASHDOT NEWS TOMORROW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope it's not "DVD Jon breaks leg"

    The news story coming is:

    "'DVD Jon' breaks both kneecaps in freak 'accident'"

  60. Feature sneak by Namlak · · Score: 1

    Of course, it's because Windows is the operating system that allows a developer to sneak "features" into the OS.

    Ask any malware writer!

  61. only top coders are qualified to use goto properly by Xtifr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Good programmers know goto is harmful - great programmers know when it's not.

    Actually, even there I'm exaggerating a bit. Even fairly average programmers can usually be taught when goto is acceptable and when it's not. Anyway, the goto statement in C is much more limited, and much safer than the wide-open, global-scale thermonuclear goto that Wirth originally wrote about.

    Highwayman: I know you Wizards have rules against using your powers on civilians, so you don't scare me. Just hand over the money, er...ri-deep?
    Ridcully: (blowing on his finger and staring at the new-made frog) It's more of a guideline than a rule, actually.

  62. Not on Google News by bsytko · · Score: 1

    Suprisingly, there is no mention of this anywhere on Google News. Hmm...

    1. Re:Not on Google News by Cryptacool · · Score: 1

      Yeah its a consipiracy .... oh.... wait.

  63. DVD Jon's Patch (C# Sources) by VishalMishra · · Score: 1

    Here's the C# source for DVD John's GVPatch.Exe

    http://www.geocities.com/vishalmishra/GVVPatch.cs. txt

  64. you are wrong: authoritative answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yahoo gets its news from feeds (not crawled, but regular feeds), and puts the data up as they get it. this is the authoritative answer, i have worked on this site, all your conjecture is BS.

    1. Re:you are wrong: authoritative answer by Peyna · · Score: 1

      I was merely asking if such things were possible. Also, your comment does not address the possibility that a human could be involved in the process and therefore influence the location of stories and/or story selection.

      this is the authoritative answer, i have worked on this site, all your conjecture is BS.

      Remind me to put this at the end of all my comments, it really adds authority to what you have to say.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:you are wrong: authoritative answer by Sleuth · · Score: 1

      Especially from an anonymous poster.

      Let's just all agree I'm the President of the United States, shall we?

      Oh, wait, I didn't turn on anon.

    3. Re:you are wrong: authoritative answer by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Oh, wait, I didn't turn on anon.
      You also didn't misspell "agree."

  65. Another link where the patch can be downloaded fro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ive seen the patch before on a torrent site http://www.bogaa.org/ I think its briliant! Hope they crack the msn webcam codec to so we Geeks can use it on our linux boxes

  66. Mod up by bogie · · Score: 1

    Nice bookmarklet. :)

    If you don't want to install google's special player just download VLC zip version and then click "Open File", copy and paste the link and the video plays. No muss and no extra software/MIME types needed.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  67. You can play videos under Linux too! by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 1
    What "crack" will he do next? Take the VLC code to dump the file/stream you're playing, add it to Google's code, and create a Google Stream Ripper?

    Done! You don't even need VLC: the http://video.google.com/ pages contains code like this:

    <a href="#" onclick="return switchvideo(getTopSegment(), 'http%3A%2F%2Fvp.video.google.com%2Fvideoplayback% 3Fid%3D263ae795eb9113f5%26begin%3D0%26len%3D638071 %26itag%3Dw320%26docid%3D-7188406163343959254%26ur lcreated%3D1120069347%26sigh%3DYK_iMhDj4HQdjDiJE7o MXVyCg4c');">

    You can simply copy the string (the one that starts with http...), use your favourite language to unquote it (e.g. urllib.unquote() in Python or unescape() in JS) and download the file or play it online with any media player! (mplayer under Linux is perfectly fine!)

    Wow... how... amaz... ing.

    Yeah! ;-)

    P.S.: a greasemonkey script that do the above automagically, anyone?

    --
    There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
    1. Re:You can play videos under Linux too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:You can play videos under Linux too! by jcuervo · · Score: 1
      echo url | perl -pe 's/%(..)/chr hex $1/eg'
      That should do it.
      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
  68. You can play videos under Linux too! by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 1

    No: you can see the videos under any OS and any (good) media player!
    You don't even need VLC: the http://video.google.com/ [google.com] pages contains code like this:

    <a href="#" onclick="return switchvideo(getTopSegment(), 'http%3A%2F%2Fvp.video.google.com%2Fvideoplayback% 3Fid%3D263ae795eb9113f5%26begin%3D0%26len%3D638071 %26itag%3Dw320%26docid%3D-7188406163343959254%26ur lcreated%3D1120069347%26sigh%3DYK_iMhDj4HQdjDiJE7o MXVyCg4c');">

    You can simply copy the string (the one that starts with http...), use your favourite language to unquote it (e.g. urllib.unquote() in Python or unescape() in JS) and download the file or play it online with any media player! (mplayer under Linux is perfectly fine!)

    P.S.: a greasemonkey script that do the above automagically, anyone?

    --
    There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
  69. Who is providing the stuff on Google Videos? by LordJezo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Um, the entire collection of the Travel Channel's Great Hotels?

    The O'Reilly Factor?

    The Tony Danza Show?

    C-SPAN Book TV?

    Is this stuff being provded by the TV studios?

    What is the deal with Google Videos?

    Where is all the content coming from?

  70. Who cares? I can't find a video to play by MemeRot · · Score: 1

    I did all kinds of searches. Got many results. Zero of them were playable videos.

  71. -1, parent is a farking idiot by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1
    GPL only requires you to distribute the source if you distribute the program, moran!!!

    At what point did you think it was? Pressing a keystroke in the editor?

    I hate it when jackasses always have to throw in their ignorant comments.

    1. Re:-1, parent is a farking idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPL only requires you to distribute the source if you distribute the program, moran!!!

      There is a lovely irony in some jerk calling someone a moron and spelling it 'moran'.

    2. Re:-1, parent is a farking idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^_^ Not a farker ^_^

    3. Re:-1, parent is a farking idiot by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Are you this this guy?

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    4. Re:-1, parent is a farking idiot by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 1

      It was a joke, jerk.
      The moderators thought it was funny.

      Might I suggest you resolve those childhood issues so you can appreciate humour?

      I hate it when jackasses always take things literally and post ignorant comments.

  72. Workaround exists ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  73. please mod parent sideways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    negative mods are bad, but the parent doesn't seem to get (or just chose to ignore) the joke

    pseudo-mod: "-0: too serious"

  74. Re:Marquis de Sade by rduke15 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is the Marquis de Sade of the technology world.

    This is an insult. The Marquis de Sade was an aristocrat and a significant writer. How can you compare him with some commercial company?

  75. That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A little-known hacker secret known as "//" or comment sequence is being used to illegally remove protections in computer software

    That's nothing guys. In Soviet Russia // removes you!

    Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of that? A huge cluster of Soviet //'s running night and day for the sole purpose of removing you... scares the beejeezes out of me!

  76. Plain Vanilla VLC ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the chatter here seems to point to a plain vanilla VLC as being incapable of viewing Google video. So is Google doing us any service by making a proprietary bastard plugin out of a perfectly good Open Source viewer? Google must have sorted the licensing ramifications of .Net & GPL, but it smells off to me...

  77. Yeeeeah by ImaLamer · · Score: 1
    Did you use that as a subject because you read it the same as I did?
    "Lil Jon Breaks Google Video Lock".
    When asked if this would defeat Google's copy protection 'Jon' answered:

    Whaaat?

    then

    Yeeaah!

    And said all that remains to be done by the user is click:

    Oh Kaaay
  78. When a virus could be helpfull ;) by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1


    Google releasing video.google.com: lots-of-servers
    DVD Jon "breaks" google video: dirty-patch, 10$
    Average user installing patch: 20$
    Some geek releasing virus with patch: PRICELESS!

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  79. goto 10 by MexicanMenace · · Score: 1

    10 company releases software
    20 hacker modifies software
    30 hacker releases modified software
    40 software works better
    50 company attacks hacker
    60 post to slashdot
    70 goto 10