If you buy vista then you own that copy, just like you own a CD.
There are no restrictions on what you can do with that copy other than copyright law.
That means that you can legally run any version of vista on any machine you want to, virtual or not.
The only terms of the purchase that matter are those that are presented to you before you hand over the cash at the store, so the EULA is not worth the space it wastes on the CD.
What would happen if EULAs were allowed? You might find that after you get home with your new car that you are obligated to only buy Shell(tm) gasoline.
Well, in the EU at least.
If EULAs were to have any power at all then you would need to read, understand and agree to the terms before making the purchase, MS knows full well that they would never sell another copy if people read any of their EULAs so that will never happen.
This way the terrorists/law enforcement agents who captured you and forced you to give up your first volume key will not stop at that, they will simply keep torturing you until they get the key they need or you die.
Plausible deniability doesn't work if the opponent knows that you are trying to use it.
It's even worse when you factor in various clues on your machine that show that the hidden disk contains data that you have used.
The clues could be as simple as an OOo history that shows that you have edited/mnt/secret/suparsecret/plan-to-take-over-the-worl d.odt or a.bash_history that shows that you've done a 'cd/mnt/secret/suparsecret'
XSLT is disqualified because it's impossible to do anything of any complexity in it without going insane.
Not only is the syntax horendously complex, but there are major misimplemented features that force strange and illogical workarounds, but people used to real programming languages have a really hard time grasping the template style leading to even more frustrations.
XSLT is a complete paradox, on one hand it's supposed to let non-programmers manipulate xml, but at the same time it's so hard to use that programmers can't use it.
I'd rather use a real programming language that I already know and manipulate the data with that, thank you very much.
I'll grant you that trac isn't the easiest package to install, but "tried for weeks"???
Just find the installation instructions and start working, it took me about half a day, including other tasks and lunch to get trac going the first time.
I figured we were one of the last companies in the world with that piece of shit software.
The biggest problem with SC is that it's so obviously bad that it's impossible to describe how badly it sucks because you are automatically calling everybody who had anything with buying it complete idiots.
Just to give outsiders an idea of how bad SC is on the scale of things sorted by suckage:
Websphere PHP open leg fracture Windows Staffware Exchange SC
I really like trac as well, I don't know if it's the excellent integration with subversion or the integrated wiki, but it's really a great piece of software.
Don't assume that it wasn't possible to do Luxo Jr. in real time way earlier, just because the crappy 3d accelerators finally got around to doing it by 2001.
My guess is that if anyone wanted to then they could have replicated Luxo Jr. in pure software around 1997, but in somewhat less than broadcast quality.
The demoscene did many effects in real time much more impressive and at higher complexity for years earlier.
Bricking a software player is virtually free, if the player can self update.
Otherwise I'm pretty sure the content mafiaa is pretty content bricking the individual player that was compromised.
Bricking an entire model of hardware player is going to be quite a different matter, I'll give you that.
I don't think that the cost of remastering a disc is all that high, they might even remaster for every single pressing of the disk, just to be mean.
I quite agree that DRM will never stop piracy, scraping the bits out of the LCD and the amplifier is never going to be impossible.
DRM will make it hard to write good players that will play unaltered disks, so in the end it will mean that people like me will never buy a legal disk and in stead sink that money into a fatter Internet line.
What are the large practical problems with revoking player keys?
What makes you think that the windvd keys havn't been revoked?
Do you have a movie that was mastered after the crack was made public?
The only thing that happens when a player key is revoked is that new movies get encrypted so that player key doesn't work any more, it's not like all windvd installations will magicly stop working.
I once read an article that proposed that all software players should share the same key and that key would be revoked about quite often (once a month was mentioned), thus forcing all users of software players to upgrade often to be able to play new movies.
I don't know if this is what they do at the moment, but there is really nothing to stop them.
Someone with a valid player key could set up a server that will decrypt title keys that HD customers send it.
That way the player key is never in the clear and the content mafia will not know what player key to revoke.
The tricky bit is that it's quite possible for the mafia to figure out what player key it is, because they can generate all the revocation trees they want and use that to perform a binary search for the player key.
So when someone does this they will need to make sure that the system refuses to even work on key blocks with strange revocation trees (previously unknown) that come from untrusted sources.
Alternatively the server could simulate that its key is everywhere in a huge part of the keyspace where there are no revoked keys, so if the attacker tries a keyblock that has any key in that entire range revoked, then the server will act as though it couldn't decrypt the keyblock and thus keep the attacker guessing.
The movies don't get revoked, new pressings will have new title keys though.
Maybe the evil overlords will even use new keys for every separate pressing of a title, just to drive up the cost of the title key database and to make it less likely that someone has a valid key for your title already.
One of the major failings of CSS was the limited keyspace that meant that they couldn't revoke any player keys, because so many players had to share.
With AACS it's cheap and easy for them to revoke just one key and each player has a key of its own.
So if someone goes to extraordinary (lengthy + expensive) lengths to extract a key from a player then they can revoke only that key and they have to start over on a new player.
If an entire production run has a problem then that run can be disabled just as easily as disabling one player key.
What we need to do is to stop telling people how the keys were obtained and distribute decrypted title keys, that way they can't know what player key to revoke.
You might have heard of this concept called "laws", "laws" tell people and companies how they must act and what happens when they don't.
I know that this will come as a shock to you lawless frontier cowboys, so brace yourself, around here there are things that you just can't do, no matter what.
One of these things is murder, no matter what contract you get someone to sign, you can't murder them.
Some business transactions are regulated in the same way, here are a couple of examples: * You can't get less than 2 years warranty on new goods, no matter what the store says. * You can't be forced into further restrictions after a sale has been made (EULAs are void).
What Apple does is to apply restrictions that are not legal, that's why they are being asked to fix their problem.
You have completely failed to understand the issue.
This has nothing to do with how successful Apple is, this has to do with Apple not obeying the laws.
You can't pretend sell stuff around here and then amend the contract after the fact.
There are several other problems with DRM, like the restrictions on otherwise legal use (like making unlimited copies), so it good to see that the other end of the copyright bargain gets some backing.
It's simple consumer protection, Apple has to shape up and obey the laws.
Funny how that works, we (well many in Europe) see Americans as rash, stupid and violent in international affairs.
You (the US) seems to lack all moderation.
The EU works mainly to maintain the open market with free competition, it has succeeded in doing that for a long time, many cartels have been broken up and many companies have been fined into compliance with the laws.
The way to fix the problems is not to say "(We will ban all your products from the entire EU | turn your country into a glass parking lot) unless you do as we say", the objective is not to kill the opposition, but to modify harmful behavior, in that regard moderation is key.
It's much better to talk to the company and back that up with increasing fines, because that's something that will eventually make the company change its mind.
Apple and MS are small potatoes, they will fall in line soon enough.
You can easily legislate technology, governments do it all the time.
There are laws that govern how much cars can pollute, to take just one example.
This is really not a story about technology, it's about consumer protection, something that exists in much of Europe and not really in the US.
One of the main complaints is that Apple can revoke access to music that people have bought, that's illegal around here, so naturally they have to fix the problem.
Funny, I've found that switching to greylisting has meant that I went from 50+ spams pr. day on one account to 0-2, with the norm being 0.
The trick is that I don't just use greylisting, I use greylisting + spamtrap driven RBLs, so that once the greylisting period runs out the RBLs have a much greater chance of having been hit by the same spammer and thus they catch him.
Grylisting on its was a temporary fix, but it makes spamtrap driven RBLs pretty much bulletproof.
You could get pretty much the same result simply by tarpitting connections that would have been greylisted for 15 minutes rather than giving the immediate error code and then checking the RBLs before receiving the body of the mail.
Slashdot Mirror
If you buy vista then you own that copy, just like you own a CD.
There are no restrictions on what you can do with that copy other than copyright law.
That means that you can legally run any version of vista on any machine you want to, virtual or not.
The only terms of the purchase that matter are those that are presented to you before you hand over the cash at the store, so the EULA is not worth the space it wastes on the CD.
What would happen if EULAs were allowed?
You might find that after you get home with your new car that you are obligated to only buy Shell(tm) gasoline.
Well, in the EU at least.
If EULAs were to have any power at all then you would need to read, understand and agree to the terms before making the purchase, MS knows full well that they would never sell another copy if people read any of their EULAs so that will never happen.
With windows learning starts easy enough and becomes harder and harder only to end up at impossible.
This way the terrorists/law enforcement agents who captured you and forced you to give up your first volume key will not stop at that, they will simply keep torturing you until they get the key they need or you die.
/mnt/secret/suparsecret/plan-to-take-over-the-worl d.odt or a .bash_history that shows that you've done a 'cd /mnt/secret/suparsecret'
Plausible deniability doesn't work if the opponent knows that you are trying to use it.
It's even worse when you factor in various clues on your machine that show that the hidden disk contains data that you have used.
The clues could be as simple as an OOo history that shows that you have edited
XSLT is disqualified because it's impossible to do anything of any complexity in it without going insane.
Not only is the syntax horendously complex, but there are major misimplemented features that force strange and illogical workarounds, but people used to real programming languages have a really hard time grasping the template style leading to even more frustrations.
XSLT is a complete paradox, on one hand it's supposed to let non-programmers manipulate xml, but at the same time it's so hard to use that programmers can't use it.
I'd rather use a real programming language that I already know and manipulate the data with that, thank you very much.
Mass doesn't change, so the opponent will have his normal amount of inertia.
A lot changed between 1994 and 1997.
If someone had wanted to then they could have replicated luxo jr, though.
I'll grant you that trac isn't the easiest package to install, but "tried for weeks"???
Just find the installation instructions and start working, it took me about half a day, including other tasks and lunch to get trac going the first time.
A fellow SC sufferer! I feel your pain man!
I figured we were one of the last companies in the world with that piece of shit software.
The biggest problem with SC is that it's so obviously bad that it's impossible to describe how badly it sucks because you are automatically calling everybody who had anything with buying it complete idiots.
Just to give outsiders an idea of how bad SC is on the scale of things sorted by suckage:
Websphere PHP open leg fracture Windows Staffware Exchange SC
What you said, just replace Craft with ServiceCenter.
Not only is it expensive as hell, but it's also an utter turd of a program that looks and works like it was designed by retarded monkeys on crack.
I really like trac as well, I don't know if it's the excellent integration with subversion or the integrated wiki, but it's really a great piece of software.
Don't assume that it wasn't possible to do Luxo Jr. in real time way earlier, just because the crappy 3d accelerators finally got around to doing it by 2001.
My guess is that if anyone wanted to then they could have replicated Luxo Jr. in pure software around 1997, but in somewhat less than broadcast quality.
The demoscene did many effects in real time much more impressive and at higher complexity for years earlier.
When DRM stops the articles stop
Bricking a software player is virtually free, if the player can self update.
Otherwise I'm pretty sure the content mafiaa is pretty content bricking the individual player that was compromised.
Bricking an entire model of hardware player is going to be quite a different matter, I'll give you that.
I don't think that the cost of remastering a disc is all that high, they might even remaster for every single pressing of the disk, just to be mean.
I quite agree that DRM will never stop piracy, scraping the bits out of the LCD and the amplifier is never going to be impossible.
DRM will make it hard to write good players that will play unaltered disks, so in the end it will mean that people like me will never buy a legal disk and in stead sink that money into a fatter Internet line.
What are the large practical problems with revoking player keys?
What makes you think that the windvd keys havn't been revoked?
Do you have a movie that was mastered after the crack was made public?
The only thing that happens when a player key is revoked is that new movies get encrypted so that player key doesn't work any more, it's not like all windvd installations will magicly stop working.
I once read an article that proposed that all software players should share the same key and that key would be revoked about quite often (once a month was mentioned), thus forcing all users of software players to upgrade often to be able to play new movies.
I don't know if this is what they do at the moment, but there is really nothing to stop them.
Someone with a valid player key could set up a server that will decrypt title keys that HD customers send it.
That way the player key is never in the clear and the content mafia will not know what player key to revoke.
The tricky bit is that it's quite possible for the mafia to figure out what player key it is, because they can generate all the revocation trees they want and use that to perform a binary search for the player key.
So when someone does this they will need to make sure that the system refuses to even work on key blocks with strange revocation trees (previously unknown) that come from untrusted sources.
Alternatively the server could simulate that its key is everywhere in a huge part of the keyspace where there are no revoked keys, so if the attacker tries a keyblock that has any key in that entire range revoked, then the server will act as though it couldn't decrypt the keyblock and thus keep the attacker guessing.
AACS has such a large keyspace that every single player can get its own individual key.
AACS also allows cheap and secure revokation of just a single player key.
If the entire production run was flawed then all 10000 playerkeys can be revoked at the same cost as revoking a single player.
There is (sadly) no hostage situation possible with AACS.
The movies don't get revoked, new pressings will have new title keys though.
Maybe the evil overlords will even use new keys for every separate pressing of a title, just to drive up the cost of the title key database and to make it less likely that someone has a valid key for your title already.
AACS allows them to revoke only the key that you extracted, so there is no hostage situation as there was with CSS.
Unfortunately.
The player keys need to be kept secret, they can never be distributed.
In stead we will have to create a library of decrypted title keys, those can't be traced to a player key, so they can be in the open.
One of the major failings of CSS was the limited keyspace that meant that they couldn't revoke any player keys, because so many players had to share.
With AACS it's cheap and easy for them to revoke just one key and each player has a key of its own.
So if someone goes to extraordinary (lengthy + expensive) lengths to extract a key from a player then they can revoke only that key and they have to start over on a new player.
If an entire production run has a problem then that run can be disabled just as easily as disabling one player key.
What we need to do is to stop telling people how the keys were obtained and distribute decrypted title keys, that way they can't know what player key to revoke.
You might have heard of this concept called "laws", "laws" tell people and companies how they must act and what happens when they don't.
I know that this will come as a shock to you lawless frontier cowboys, so brace yourself, around here there are things that you just can't do, no matter what.
One of these things is murder, no matter what contract you get someone to sign, you can't murder them.
Some business transactions are regulated in the same way, here are a couple of examples:
* You can't get less than 2 years warranty on new goods, no matter what the store says.
* You can't be forced into further restrictions after a sale has been made (EULAs are void).
What Apple does is to apply restrictions that are not legal, that's why they are being asked to fix their problem.
You have completely failed to understand the issue.
This has nothing to do with how successful Apple is, this has to do with Apple not obeying the laws.
You can't pretend sell stuff around here and then amend the contract after the fact.
There are several other problems with DRM, like the restrictions on otherwise legal use (like making unlimited copies), so it good to see that the other end of the copyright bargain gets some backing.
It's simple consumer protection, Apple has to shape up and obey the laws.
Funny how that works, we (well many in Europe) see Americans as rash, stupid and violent in international affairs.
You (the US) seems to lack all moderation.
The EU works mainly to maintain the open market with free competition, it has succeeded in doing that for a long time, many cartels have been broken up and many companies have been fined into compliance with the laws.
The way to fix the problems is not to say "(We will ban all your products from the entire EU | turn your country into a glass parking lot) unless you do as we say", the objective is not to kill the opposition, but to modify harmful behavior, in that regard moderation is key.
It's much better to talk to the company and back that up with increasing fines, because that's something that will eventually make the company change its mind.
Apple and MS are small potatoes, they will fall in line soon enough.
You can easily legislate technology, governments do it all the time.
There are laws that govern how much cars can pollute, to take just one example.
This is really not a story about technology, it's about consumer protection, something that exists in much of Europe and not really in the US.
One of the main complaints is that Apple can revoke access to music that people have bought, that's illegal around here, so naturally they have to fix the problem.
Well, you can solve this by whitelisting the broken appliances.
A better solution would be to ignore the problem, because those appliances are broken and need to be replaced or fixed no matter what.
Funny, I've found that switching to greylisting has meant that I went from 50+ spams pr. day on one account to 0-2, with the norm being 0.
The trick is that I don't just use greylisting, I use greylisting + spamtrap driven RBLs, so that once the greylisting period runs out the RBLs have a much greater chance of having been hit by the same spammer and thus they catch him.
Grylisting on its was a temporary fix, but it makes spamtrap driven RBLs pretty much bulletproof.
You could get pretty much the same result simply by tarpitting connections that would have been greylisted for 15 minutes rather than giving the immediate error code and then checking the RBLs before receiving the body of the mail.