I know it can be done on XP, but doesn't vista prohibit it? Friend of mine tried to and failed, but needless to say he's not that tech-savvy [running vista]
The one that really gets me is when they claim a MAC address is proof, since on windows it can't be changed (to my knowledge, I'm sure ther'es a hack) due to DRM.
At least an IP is related at all to the downloader, even if it's through a router or WAP, etc.
Pybraces got me in. I dropped it in disgust a few hours later. Seriously.
I've found that RoR is farther along than Django, if you can stand Ruby, which I can't. Django is usable, improving, and in Python.
Of course Python vs Ruby is more personal taste than much else it's not an objectively evil language like Java, which has been shown to rape babies and vote for Republicans.
No ad tv, [more] right to privacy and encryption (granted, we'll be at or below a UK level soon enough)...a personal choice.
I prefer the former. Don't fault anyone who prefers the latter though.
They can claim whatever they want. It's not legal until a court enforces it. More to the point, a non-scary reading (which I'm not convinced is the correct one) is simply that they reserve the rights to the content necessary to represent it to you. With all the recent decisions regarding copying of programs into ram for execution and/or mmap being copying, such precautions aren't absurd. Of course it could also be the scary one, I don't know.
Exactly, it sends the wrong message. My compromise is to find another interesting game that uses no onerous DRM and buy it, then torrent the offending title.
Don't support a broken business model.
Unlike Congress, I don't believe in subsidizing antiquated business models. If I want something that has DRM I'll buy a similar product without then pirate the one I want.
I'm still a hypocrite, my laptop bears the Mark of the Beast.
Artists don't profit from albums unless they sell a huge number (or are famous enough to negotiate a fair contract, or go independent label)
Artists make albums and give all profits to the RIAA up to a certain point. Past that point, they get a few cents per sale. Concerts are where they rake it in.
I believe in fair use, and in fair dealing. The RIAA is just sharecropping.
I also feel that these certs are snake oil, I've seen a scam or two (granted, not in hte last year and not that many) that had "legitimate" certifications from root CAs my browser trusted.
Some authorities are quite legitimate and some are notorious for not asking too many questions if your check doesn't bounce.
What if a site offers a cert but I don't care about encryption (eg it's a news site or something)? (happens a lot). It's nice to just be able to click Accept and go on. Requiring an advanced procedure (for many users) for a normal, everyday, task is simply not reasonable.
There should be two icons. One for authentication, one for encryption. At the very least a menu option to turn this nagware off would be appreciated.
Um...there are plenty of legitimate sites that don't have signed certs by some arbitrary company. Mozilla is welcome to add our root CA to their trusted list whenever they want.
I like flash. Flash + flashblock = no ads.
Of course I have adblock anyway.
Youtube is irritating though, especially with their broken version detection code
Precisely. Though for me I don't generally like RIAA bands anyway. I'm hoping that the Indies will form up radio stations of their own. With net neutrality it's a great idea. Without it...well, it could suck.
I wonder if the new pay-for-internet will let you pay $$$ to reduce someone else's priority rather than just bumping your own, forcing them to match you dollar for dollar. Let the market decide!
False: TPM would allow a treacherous platform that would be damn hard to break. It could even be open source (or even GPL 2'd), if you can't tinker it doesn't matter if you need to change BeAJackass from True to False in the code.
Combining enough technical means to stop the average Joe with ferocious prosecution of anyone (even foreign citizens) who break it and release the break is enough to dissuade most. Of course you can get things like Requiem etc off freenet anyway.
Newer computers are starting without the pcm recording device for anti-piracy. Or at least my new thinkpad did. Lenovo actually disabled the Intel chipset's pcm in in hardware.
I'm missing your point...of course it works fine, they're the same drives. Just because two things are compatible doesn't mean that the manufacturers have to support "counterfeit" parts being used.
It does seem like any reasonable repairman would only use this if you made a big mistake (like accidentally smashing the motherboard with a hammer when installing your HDs), but as I said; that's enforcement, not rules on the books.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it can be done on XP, but doesn't vista prohibit it? Friend of mine tried to and failed, but needless to say he's not that tech-savvy [running vista]
Yes. Apple's DRMed files are 128 mbit mp4s if you disable the DRM. Their drm-free ones are good quality. Good point.
And with Requiem your iTunes Music Store is usable with other things as well.
Too bad the quality's shitty and they're MP3. 'sides, I don't like to subsidize a broken business model. At least amazon sells them DRM free.
The one that really gets me is when they claim a MAC address is proof, since on windows it can't be changed (to my knowledge, I'm sure ther'es a hack) due to DRM.
At least an IP is related at all to the downloader, even if it's through a router or WAP, etc.
The thing I dropped was pybraces. I love python. Should have clarified.
Pybraces got me in. I dropped it in disgust a few hours later. Seriously.
I've found that RoR is farther along than Django, if you can stand Ruby, which I can't. Django is usable, improving, and in Python.
Of course Python vs Ruby is more personal taste than much else it's not an objectively evil language like Java, which has been shown to rape babies and vote for Republicans.
No ad tv, [more] right to privacy and encryption (granted, we'll be at or below a UK level soon enough)...a personal choice. I prefer the former. Don't fault anyone who prefers the latter though.
DMCA, you're not allowed to bypass "technical means" even if it's for fair use.
GOod call on their part. Personally, I'm expecting a correction from Google soon. Until then, I'm avoiding Chrome like a windows-only product. wait...
This scientist, for one, welcomes the arrival of our googly overlords, and offers his assistance in rounding up the resistance.
They can claim whatever they want. It's not legal until a court enforces it. More to the point, a non-scary reading (which I'm not convinced is the correct one) is simply that they reserve the rights to the content necessary to represent it to you. With all the recent decisions regarding copying of programs into ram for execution and/or mmap being copying, such precautions aren't absurd. Of course it could also be the scary one, I don't know.
Exactly, it sends the wrong message. My compromise is to find another interesting game that uses no onerous DRM and buy it, then torrent the offending title. Don't support a broken business model.
Unlike Congress, I don't believe in subsidizing antiquated business models. If I want something that has DRM I'll buy a similar product without then pirate the one I want. I'm still a hypocrite, my laptop bears the Mark of the Beast.
but I would give a lot to know (as opposed to infer) where PyStar is getting the money for all this.
I have comcast:-( No torrentie for me.
Artists don't profit from albums unless they sell a huge number (or are famous enough to negotiate a fair contract, or go independent label) Artists make albums and give all profits to the RIAA up to a certain point. Past that point, they get a few cents per sale. Concerts are where they rake it in. I believe in fair use, and in fair dealing. The RIAA is just sharecropping.
I also feel that these certs are snake oil, I've seen a scam or two (granted, not in hte last year and not that many) that had "legitimate" certifications from root CAs my browser trusted. Some authorities are quite legitimate and some are notorious for not asking too many questions if your check doesn't bounce. What if a site offers a cert but I don't care about encryption (eg it's a news site or something)? (happens a lot). It's nice to just be able to click Accept and go on. Requiring an advanced procedure (for many users) for a normal, everyday, task is simply not reasonable. There should be two icons. One for authentication, one for encryption. At the very least a menu option to turn this nagware off would be appreciated.
Um...there are plenty of legitimate sites that don't have signed certs by some arbitrary company. Mozilla is welcome to add our root CA to their trusted list whenever they want.
As proven by all the emails I get to extend the length of my penis and size of my breasts.
I like flash. Flash + flashblock = no ads. Of course I have adblock anyway. Youtube is irritating though, especially with their broken version detection code
Precisely. Though for me I don't generally like RIAA bands anyway. I'm hoping that the Indies will form up radio stations of their own. With net neutrality it's a great idea. Without it...well, it could suck. I wonder if the new pay-for-internet will let you pay $$$ to reduce someone else's priority rather than just bumping your own, forcing them to match you dollar for dollar. Let the market decide!
Ah well, back to piracy for me.
False: TPM would allow a treacherous platform that would be damn hard to break. It could even be open source (or even GPL 2'd), if you can't tinker it doesn't matter if you need to change BeAJackass from True to False in the code. Combining enough technical means to stop the average Joe with ferocious prosecution of anyone (even foreign citizens) who break it and release the break is enough to dissuade most. Of course you can get things like Requiem etc off freenet anyway.
Newer computers are starting without the pcm recording device for anti-piracy. Or at least my new thinkpad did. Lenovo actually disabled the Intel chipset's pcm in in hardware.
I'm missing your point...of course it works fine, they're the same drives. Just because two things are compatible doesn't mean that the manufacturers have to support "counterfeit" parts being used. It does seem like any reasonable repairman would only use this if you made a big mistake (like accidentally smashing the motherboard with a hammer when installing your HDs), but as I said; that's enforcement, not rules on the books.