The only things which can cause a government to reduce its level of power are (1) war, or (2) economic collapse
A little thought shows this to be false. You have the example of a whole bunch of countries in Eastern Europe which gave up enormous amounts of power without either a war or an economic collapse to drive it.
Sounds to me like this is just a battle of semantics at this point. You're calling the implicit rights granted by copyright law a "license", and I'm calling the lack of an explicit piece of paper from the copyright holder "not a license". Same thing in the end. The fundamental fact is that your rights are based on the physical copy you have, there is no right to obtain a second copy "at cost" if your first one gets destroyed, but the law still restricts what you can do with the copy you have.
You're buying both, and your critical error is that a license has text. It does not. A license is not a document or an otherwise tangible thing. It is a grant of rights stemming from the owner of those rights to a user. Lack of text has no bearing on whether a license exists.
Second, the Copyright Act clearly spells out exactly what rights you do receive upon purchase: ownership of the medium, but zero ownership of the work (s. 202). You have no right to reproduce the work contained on the medium (s. 106), except as specifically permitted (i.e. licensed) by the Copyright Act (ss. 107-22), or as otherwise licensed to you by explicit grant or agreement (e.g. an SLA).
So where is the license? As far as I can see, all you get is some restrictions, and what you're allowed to do falls out implicitly as the inverse of those restrictions. Still no license in sight. You say a license is a grant of right. What rights are being granted? You simply own a physical object, and can do with it as you wish, as long as you obey the restrictions set forth in the law. This is not a license, any more than the fact that I'm not allowed to stab people with a kitchen knife means that it came with a license.
There's no such thing as an implicit license granted under copyright law. Where does this idea come from? It simply has no similarity with reality.
When you purchase an object which contains copyrighted content, you purchased that object. Full stop, end of story. No license is involved.
You don't need a license to use an object which contains copyrighted content. That's why there is no license in the picture. Not implicit, not explicit. You can do anything you want with that object and with that content so long as it is not forbidden by copyright. You can burn it. You can watch it 50 times in a row while eating hot dogs. You can make seven different copies, one for each day of the week. You can shift it to a different format so you can watch it elsewhere.
What you cannot do is distribute copies on a large scale or carry out a public performance of this content. Unless the copyright holder gives you permission, of course. But all the rest is simply permitted by default, because it's not forbidden. No licenses in sight.
Well, Debian is still worse, because that severely compromised a lot of systems, whereas all Nintendo's checks do is prevent people from running the software they want on hardware they own.
It would be respectable (probably) but not very surprising. RSA implementations have been broken many times before, by holes ranging from exotica like power-consumption attacks (figure out the secret key by watching how much electricity the system consumes at any given moment) to utter foolishness like the Debian random seeding fiasco. One advantage the hackers have going for them is that there's huge cost pressure on these consumer electronics and this can cause the hardware manufacturers to skimp on good implementations. For example, the way you protect against timing or power-consumption attacks is to deliberately waste time and power while performing the algorithm, and a hardware manufacturer may not want to do that.
You're buying a physical object. You aren't buying a license, and you don't have any kind of license. (For the obvious proof of this, try to find the text of the license. You can't, because there isn't one.)
Now it just so happens that the content on that physical object is protected by copyright. Copyright law places various restrictions on what you can do with that content.
Under old-style copyright law it is illegal to make copies of that content beyond the bounds of fair use. So no ripping the DVD to other DVDs and selling them on the street corner. On the other hand making a backup copy for yourself is fine. Making a copy for your friend, that gets a little fuzzy, but probably not fine. (Fair use is not very well defined.)
However that content is scrambled as a copy-protection measure and the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass that scrambling. So if you use any ripper then you're breaking the law. (Unless you have a rare unscrambled DVD, in which case it's fine, so long as you stay within the bounds of traditional copyright.) However it is legal to, say, point a camera at your screen and make a copy that way. But what you do with that copy had better stay within the bounds of copyright law.
In short, you're not paying for a license, but you're not free to do what you please with the physical object you're buying either.
BD+ isn't an algorithm so there's no global crack unless the designers made a serious mistake in their implementation.
I don't buy it. A global crack would merely look so much like a real player that the BD+ program couldn't tell the difference. It seems that this is tricky to do, but at least in theory there's nothing that says it can't be done.
Don't care if he's right or wrong. Phrases like "insane amount of terror" when describing an online gaming system are ridiculous and indicate that this person is mentally unwell.
Going purely by memory, I believe it happened at least twice. Once was a government program as you say, with the goal of seeing just how much information could be gleaned from publicly available information. And this was in the 60s sometime, so you can bet that it has become vastly easier since then. The other was some sort of undergraduate project done independently, although it commanded the instant attention of government officials once they discovered what he had done.
Nuclear weapons simply are not that difficult to produce for a country that really wants them. If South Africa could produce them in the 1980s and North Korea could produce them in the 2000s then this should be pretty clear.
We can take some comfort in the fact that producing a bomb small enough to be practical to deliver is a whole lot harder, and hopefully this added difficulty means that they will be controlled by people rational enough to realize that their own survival will suffer if they ever use them.
If more people took the time to be politically active and not spend it, I don't know, playing WoW, they too would have the golden opprotunity to suckle on the government's teet.
Trouble is, I don't want to suckle at anybody's teat, I just don't want them suckling at mine.
And even if becoming politically active is the way to go just for that, it appears to be impossible without selling your soul to one of the hopelessly corrupt mainstream political parties.
I assure you that the information is available, however I can't tell you where it is. My recommendation would be to find some friendly nuclear engineers and ask them where to find out. They work with this stuff all the time so they will certainly know the facts and where to obtain the facts.
It's because people confuse "playing it safe" with "sticking with what I know".
Fact is, coal kills more people than nuclear ever has, and far more people than nuclear is ever likely to in the future. (Consider that if you exclude shoddily built and horribly mismanaged Warsaw Pact nuclear plants from the equation, not a single person has ever died in a civilian nuclear power plant accident.)
But people know coal, and they don't know nuclear, so they think that the existing coal plans are the "safe" option, and building new unfamiliar nuclear plants is the "unsafe" option.
If you're worried about safety and saving lives, go nuclear!
Concentration concentration concentration. If those "100 times" (extensive) are spread over a large area, being released by smokestacks all over the country, they will hardly increase the level of background radiation (intensive) significantly. Nuclear waste, however, can reach radiation levels (intensive) that can be harmful to life, something coal power would never be able to.
So you're saying that if we were to take nuclear waste and dump it into smokestacks so that it got dispersed all over the country that the entire problem would be solved? Brilliant!
The importance of farmers in the US political process never ceases to boggle.
They make up something like 4% of the population. There are more World of Warcraft players in the US than there are farmers. Where's the massive WoW political clout?
And don't forget that was what it took to do it for the first time when much was unknown about the whole process. These days, basic bomb design is something a bright physics undergrad could handle using only public information.
They also try to calculate how much use of nuclear electric plants would increase the chance of a nuclear war (by giving more groups access to various nuclear technologies), and the environmental impact such a war might have.
That seems pretty crazy to me.
If a total shithole like North Korea can build a bomb, then the cat is out of the bag. Any country that wants nukes will get them.
Furthermore, civilian nuclear power technology is very different from what's required for building weapons.
I haven't bothered to read the article, but you certainly make it sound like they're a bit off their rocker in this respect.
Yeah, it might become practical. But there's absolutely no guarantee that fission will ever work. There's nothing in physics that says sustained fusion has to be practical at sizes less than what's required for gravitationally-bound reactions.
Fusion research definitely needs to be pursued, but at the same time all energy policy for the medium term needs to assume that fusion is never going to become viable and make sure that an acceptable solution can be worked out without it.
And note that a cheapo GPS receiver chip which would probably cost well under $20 each in quantity will ensure that your clock stays perfectly synchronized with zero user intervention, if you really wanted this to be foolproof.
(Yeah, GPS won't work in parking garages and such. That doesn't matter for this. Keep a local clock and synchronize it off the satellites when you can.)
Home does generate an insane amount of terror in the fanboys of other platforms where they start lashing out incoherently.
Here's a quick hint for you: when you start saying completely ridiculous things like this, it's a good sign that you're the crazy-assed fanboy, not the other guys.
(Full disclosure, I own a Wii, I've had it for two weeks, and I've never owned any other game consoles in my life. Pretty obviously not a fanboy here, so don't even try it.)
Yeah, you can figure out what they are getting at. But do you trust those figures to be correct when they clearly have no idea what watts and watt-hours actually are?
Slashdot Mirror
The only things which can cause a government to reduce its level of power are (1) war, or (2) economic collapse
A little thought shows this to be false. You have the example of a whole bunch of countries in Eastern Europe which gave up enormous amounts of power without either a war or an economic collapse to drive it.
Sounds to me like this is just a battle of semantics at this point. You're calling the implicit rights granted by copyright law a "license", and I'm calling the lack of an explicit piece of paper from the copyright holder "not a license". Same thing in the end. The fundamental fact is that your rights are based on the physical copy you have, there is no right to obtain a second copy "at cost" if your first one gets destroyed, but the law still restricts what you can do with the copy you have.
Good enough?
You're buying both, and your critical error is that a license has text. It does not. A license is not a document or an otherwise tangible thing. It is a grant of rights stemming from the owner of those rights to a user. Lack of text has no bearing on whether a license exists.
Second, the Copyright Act clearly spells out exactly what rights you do receive upon purchase: ownership of the medium, but zero ownership of the work (s. 202). You have no right to reproduce the work contained on the medium (s. 106), except as specifically permitted (i.e. licensed) by the Copyright Act (ss. 107-22), or as otherwise licensed to you by explicit grant or agreement (e.g. an SLA).
So where is the license? As far as I can see, all you get is some restrictions, and what you're allowed to do falls out implicitly as the inverse of those restrictions. Still no license in sight. You say a license is a grant of right. What rights are being granted? You simply own a physical object, and can do with it as you wish, as long as you obey the restrictions set forth in the law. This is not a license, any more than the fact that I'm not allowed to stab people with a kitchen knife means that it came with a license.
There's no such thing as an implicit license granted under copyright law. Where does this idea come from? It simply has no similarity with reality.
When you purchase an object which contains copyrighted content, you purchased that object. Full stop, end of story. No license is involved.
You don't need a license to use an object which contains copyrighted content. That's why there is no license in the picture. Not implicit, not explicit. You can do anything you want with that object and with that content so long as it is not forbidden by copyright. You can burn it. You can watch it 50 times in a row while eating hot dogs. You can make seven different copies, one for each day of the week. You can shift it to a different format so you can watch it elsewhere.
What you cannot do is distribute copies on a large scale or carry out a public performance of this content. Unless the copyright holder gives you permission, of course. But all the rest is simply permitted by default, because it's not forbidden. No licenses in sight.
Well, Debian is still worse, because that severely compromised a lot of systems, whereas all Nintendo's checks do is prevent people from running the software they want on hardware they own.
But still, hilarious!
It would be respectable (probably) but not very surprising. RSA implementations have been broken many times before, by holes ranging from exotica like power-consumption attacks (figure out the secret key by watching how much electricity the system consumes at any given moment) to utter foolishness like the Debian random seeding fiasco. One advantage the hackers have going for them is that there's huge cost pressure on these consumer electronics and this can cause the hardware manufacturers to skimp on good implementations. For example, the way you protect against timing or power-consumption attacks is to deliberately waste time and power while performing the algorithm, and a hardware manufacturer may not want to do that.
You're buying a physical object. You aren't buying a license, and you don't have any kind of license. (For the obvious proof of this, try to find the text of the license. You can't, because there isn't one.)
Now it just so happens that the content on that physical object is protected by copyright. Copyright law places various restrictions on what you can do with that content.
Under old-style copyright law it is illegal to make copies of that content beyond the bounds of fair use. So no ripping the DVD to other DVDs and selling them on the street corner. On the other hand making a backup copy for yourself is fine. Making a copy for your friend, that gets a little fuzzy, but probably not fine. (Fair use is not very well defined.)
However that content is scrambled as a copy-protection measure and the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass that scrambling. So if you use any ripper then you're breaking the law. (Unless you have a rare unscrambled DVD, in which case it's fine, so long as you stay within the bounds of traditional copyright.) However it is legal to, say, point a camera at your screen and make a copy that way. But what you do with that copy had better stay within the bounds of copyright law.
In short, you're not paying for a license, but you're not free to do what you please with the physical object you're buying either.
BD+ isn't an algorithm so there's no global crack unless the designers made a serious mistake in their implementation.
I don't buy it. A global crack would merely look so much like a real player that the BD+ program couldn't tell the difference. It seems that this is tricky to do, but at least in theory there's nothing that says it can't be done.
You mean you can't point a camera at your TV and record the movie? Wow. How'd they manage to pull that off?
You didn't purchase a movie. You purchased a license to watch that movie using that disk.
Wrong.
If you think you're right, then prove it. Produce the text of the license.
Don't care if he's right or wrong. Phrases like "insane amount of terror" when describing an online gaming system are ridiculous and indicate that this person is mentally unwell.
Going purely by memory, I believe it happened at least twice. Once was a government program as you say, with the goal of seeing just how much information could be gleaned from publicly available information. And this was in the 60s sometime, so you can bet that it has become vastly easier since then. The other was some sort of undergraduate project done independently, although it commanded the instant attention of government officials once they discovered what he had done.
Nuclear weapons simply are not that difficult to produce for a country that really wants them. If South Africa could produce them in the 1980s and North Korea could produce them in the 2000s then this should be pretty clear.
We can take some comfort in the fact that producing a bomb small enough to be practical to deliver is a whole lot harder, and hopefully this added difficulty means that they will be controlled by people rational enough to realize that their own survival will suffer if they ever use them.
If more people took the time to be politically active and not spend it, I don't know, playing WoW, they too would have the golden opprotunity to suckle on the government's teet.
Trouble is, I don't want to suckle at anybody's teat, I just don't want them suckling at mine.
And even if becoming politically active is the way to go just for that, it appears to be impossible without selling your soul to one of the hopelessly corrupt mainstream political parties.
You had better if you're interested in an honest evaluation of the technologies!
I assure you that the information is available, however I can't tell you where it is. My recommendation would be to find some friendly nuclear engineers and ask them where to find out. They work with this stuff all the time so they will certainly know the facts and where to obtain the facts.
It's because people confuse "playing it safe" with "sticking with what I know".
Fact is, coal kills more people than nuclear ever has, and far more people than nuclear is ever likely to in the future. (Consider that if you exclude shoddily built and horribly mismanaged Warsaw Pact nuclear plants from the equation, not a single person has ever died in a civilian nuclear power plant accident.)
But people know coal, and they don't know nuclear, so they think that the existing coal plans are the "safe" option, and building new unfamiliar nuclear plants is the "unsafe" option.
If you're worried about safety and saving lives, go nuclear!
Another victim of Islamic terror!
Concentration concentration concentration. If those "100 times" (extensive) are spread over a large area, being released by smokestacks all over the country, they will hardly increase the level of background radiation (intensive) significantly. Nuclear waste, however, can reach radiation levels (intensive) that can be harmful to life, something coal power would never be able to.
So you're saying that if we were to take nuclear waste and dump it into smokestacks so that it got dispersed all over the country that the entire problem would be solved? Brilliant!
The importance of farmers in the US political process never ceases to boggle.
They make up something like 4% of the population. There are more World of Warcraft players in the US than there are farmers. Where's the massive WoW political clout?
And don't forget that was what it took to do it for the first time when much was unknown about the whole process. These days, basic bomb design is something a bright physics undergrad could handle using only public information.
They also try to calculate how much use of nuclear electric plants would increase the chance of a nuclear war (by giving more groups access to various nuclear technologies), and the environmental impact such a war might have.
That seems pretty crazy to me.
If a total shithole like North Korea can build a bomb, then the cat is out of the bag. Any country that wants nukes will get them.
Furthermore, civilian nuclear power technology is very different from what's required for building weapons.
I haven't bothered to read the article, but you certainly make it sound like they're a bit off their rocker in this respect.
Fusion isn't any kind of solution right now.
Yeah, it might become practical. But there's absolutely no guarantee that fission will ever work. There's nothing in physics that says sustained fusion has to be practical at sizes less than what's required for gravitationally-bound reactions.
Fusion research definitely needs to be pursued, but at the same time all energy policy for the medium term needs to assume that fusion is never going to become viable and make sure that an acceptable solution can be worked out without it.
And note that a cheapo GPS receiver chip which would probably cost well under $20 each in quantity will ensure that your clock stays perfectly synchronized with zero user intervention, if you really wanted this to be foolproof.
(Yeah, GPS won't work in parking garages and such. That doesn't matter for this. Keep a local clock and synchronize it off the satellites when you can.)
Home does generate an insane amount of terror in the fanboys of other platforms where they start lashing out incoherently.
Here's a quick hint for you: when you start saying completely ridiculous things like this, it's a good sign that you're the crazy-assed fanboy, not the other guys.
(Full disclosure, I own a Wii, I've had it for two weeks, and I've never owned any other game consoles in my life. Pretty obviously not a fanboy here, so don't even try it.)
Yeah, you can figure out what they are getting at. But do you trust those figures to be correct when they clearly have no idea what watts and watt-hours actually are?