As I understand it, a plain old Truecrypt encrypted container cannot be determined to be a Truecrypt encrypted container. So unless they have some other way to prove that is what it is, it should have no implications.
Substitute "Seattle" with "Saudi Arabian". Does that mean nobody anywhere in the world can drink beer?
Yes and no. There's not a damn thing they can do when you're outside their borders (well, they might be able to request extradition, but would likely just be laughed at), but if you should ever travel to Saudi Arabia, and have ever had a beer in your life, there could be complications. I don't know anything about the law you are referencing, but an inability to protect travelers from the local government is one of the reasons for a country to show up on the Department of State's Travel Warnings list.
I was going to reference how the US can get you for smoking marijuana when outside the country, but trying to google a citation appears to indicate that that is actually false. Still, it certainly seems plausible for other countries to convict people for things they did outside that countries borders.
Well, if by "you" Darinbob meant you the consumer, then yes, you the consumer were required to pay your state's sales tax, regardless of where the item was bought from.
If Darinbob meant you the retailer, then no, you the retailer were not required to collect sales tax in states where you had no physical presence.
BTW, I'm glad to see someone else recognizes that physical stores don't have to deal with taxing jurisdictions in the same way that internet tax proponents would thrust upon internet retailers.
Before I read your comment, I was actually thinking she got someone else's old machine and that person got a brand new one, but your interpretation makes more sense.
Not as long as Call of Duty can rake in billions of dollars a year for a sequel that is almost identical to its predecessor.
Except OP doesn't seem to be talking about making a new game instead of a sequel that is almost identical to its predecessor. Sounds more like OP is saying that if you are already planning on making a game with drastic changes from what you've done before, instead of making it a sequel, make it a brand new franchise.
I'm not saying such a plan is viable, only that that seems to be what OP meant.
You are saying that the seriousness of the crime should have a bearing on whether the person is guilty or innocent.
Obvious troll is obvious. I have stated plenty of times that that is not what I am saying, but what the hell, I'll try once more.
I am saying that the seriousness of an accusation should have bearing on if certain defenses can vindicate a person who is already guilty of performing whatever act they have been accused of, not if they should be found guilty in the first place. To bring out the current bogeyman, someone accused of child pornography-related crimes should not automatically be found guilty, they should get a fair trial just like anyone else.
Also, I am not saying that the seriousness of an accusation should have bearing on if you can raise certain defenses. Although "I was just following orders" or anything else where you admit guilt is a little tricky, since some acts (such as those performed by certain Nazis) have been deemed so heinous that, if you did them (and claiming that you were just following orders generally means you are admitting to doing it. At least, I'm having a hard time imagining why you would claim "I was just following orders" if you didn't do the thing you're accused of), it's your fault and yours alone.
I think I can see where you're coming from now, and I didn't mean it like that at all. I wasn't trying to say that the seriousness of a crime should have bearing on if someone is guilty, only that the seriousness of a crime should perhaps, in some circumstances, have bearing on if "I was just following orders" is a valid defense or should have any impact on sentencing.
Let use be honest here, most people bothering to hack their PS3 are interested in pirated games. That is their primary motivation.
If we're going to "be honest here", it should be pointed out that what finally motivated the right people to irrevocably break open the PS3 was Sony removing the OtherOS feature.
it was declared invalid then and should be declared invalid now
Right, because torturing and murdering thousands* of people is completely the same thing as what this guy did.
Now I'm not saying that this guy should get off scot-free (I don't have enough evidence to say one way or the other), only that you are a moron.
*Yes, the overall deathtoll was in the millions, but I'm being generous and guessing that any one individual person was only involved with enough people to number in the thousands.
a) It's plausibly deniable due to how a Truecrypt volume masks itself
I just wanted to point out that, while they cannot detect if a Truecrypt hidden partition exists on the system partition, they can tell that the system partition is encrypted with Truecrypt.
Erm, could you explain please? So far I have been able to take any Steam DOSBOX game, put it on a PC that has never had Steam installed, and play it just fine. That to me says "No DRM Here".
Now granted, I don't think I've tried using the version of DOSBOX that came with the game... is that what you mean?
Slashdot Mirror
Why would it trash the microwave?
When I was a kid, I put a metal cupcake tin in a microwave. There was a bright flash, a loud noise, and the microwave no longer worked.
I know it's possible for some metallic objects to be used safely in a microwave, but after that experience, I'm a little weary of trying it again.
On second thought, I think I'll make my own feed.
Just don't forget the blackjack and hookers.
As I understand it, a plain old Truecrypt encrypted container cannot be determined to be a Truecrypt encrypted container. So unless they have some other way to prove that is what it is, it should have no implications.
A Truecrypt encrypted system partition however...
Substitute "Seattle" with "Saudi Arabian". Does that mean nobody anywhere in the world can drink beer?
Yes and no. There's not a damn thing they can do when you're outside their borders (well, they might be able to request extradition, but would likely just be laughed at), but if you should ever travel to Saudi Arabia, and have ever had a beer in your life, there could be complications. I don't know anything about the law you are referencing, but an inability to protect travelers from the local government is one of the reasons for a country to show up on the Department of State's Travel Warnings list.
I was going to reference how the US can get you for smoking marijuana when outside the country, but trying to google a citation appears to indicate that that is actually false. Still, it certainly seems plausible for other countries to convict people for things they did outside that countries borders.
Curious why you think "No" for the last 2 questions. DS to 3DS transfers are coming, so I see no reason why Wii to Wii2 wouldn't be allowed.
You've obviosuly never done serious game development
Sorry, I was under the impression that /. was a site for nerds of all backgrounds, not just game development nerds. Apparently I was mistaken.
Would this count?
Well, if by "you" Darinbob meant you the consumer, then yes, you the consumer were required to pay your state's sales tax, regardless of where the item was bought from.
If Darinbob meant you the retailer, then no, you the retailer were not required to collect sales tax in states where you had no physical presence.
BTW, I'm glad to see someone else recognizes that physical stores don't have to deal with taxing jurisdictions in the same way that internet tax proponents would thrust upon internet retailers.
No, I think you read it right.
Before I read your comment, I was actually thinking she got someone else's old machine and that person got a brand new one, but your interpretation makes more sense.
Not as long as Call of Duty can rake in billions of dollars a year for a sequel that is almost identical to its predecessor.
Except OP doesn't seem to be talking about making a new game instead of a sequel that is almost identical to its predecessor. Sounds more like OP is saying that if you are already planning on making a game with drastic changes from what you've done before, instead of making it a sequel, make it a brand new franchise.
I'm not saying such a plan is viable, only that that seems to be what OP meant.
You are saying that the seriousness of the crime should have a bearing on whether the person is guilty or innocent.
Obvious troll is obvious. I have stated plenty of times that that is not what I am saying, but what the hell, I'll try once more.
I am saying that the seriousness of an accusation should have bearing on if certain defenses can vindicate a person who is already guilty of performing whatever act they have been accused of, not if they should be found guilty in the first place. To bring out the current bogeyman, someone accused of child pornography-related crimes should not automatically be found guilty, they should get a fair trial just like anyone else.
Also, I am not saying that the seriousness of an accusation should have bearing on if you can raise certain defenses. Although "I was just following orders" or anything else where you admit guilt is a little tricky, since some acts (such as those performed by certain Nazis) have been deemed so heinous that, if you did them (and claiming that you were just following orders generally means you are admitting to doing it. At least, I'm having a hard time imagining why you would claim "I was just following orders" if you didn't do the thing you're accused of), it's your fault and yours alone.
I think I can see where you're coming from now, and I didn't mean it like that at all. I wasn't trying to say that the seriousness of a crime should have bearing on if someone is guilty, only that the seriousness of a crime should perhaps, in some circumstances, have bearing on if "I was just following orders" is a valid defense or should have any impact on sentencing.
Let use be honest here, most people bothering to hack their PS3 are interested in pirated games. That is their primary motivation.
If we're going to "be honest here", it should be pointed out that what finally motivated the right people to irrevocably break open the PS3 was Sony removing the OtherOS feature.
Care to provide the relevant portion of my post? I'm failing to recognize it.
Erm, where exactly did I advocate punishing people who have simply been accused of a horrendous crime?
it was declared invalid then and should be declared invalid now
Right, because torturing and murdering thousands* of people is completely the same thing as what this guy did.
Now I'm not saying that this guy should get off scot-free (I don't have enough evidence to say one way or the other), only that you are a moron.
*Yes, the overall deathtoll was in the millions, but I'm being generous and guessing that any one individual person was only involved with enough people to number in the thousands.
I can recognize a train wreck when I see one
So can I. Doesn't mean I know how it could have been avoided.
I think GP means the evolutionary pressures that brought about the genetic differences that make Africans look African, Asians look Asian, etc.
Because I'd addressed that. You cannot tell that there are hidden partitions, but you can still tell that Truecrypt was used to encrypt the disk.
I could, but I'm paranoid and would prefer FDE. :)
a) It's plausibly deniable due to how a Truecrypt volume masks itself
I just wanted to point out that, while they cannot detect if a Truecrypt hidden partition exists on the system partition, they can tell that the system partition is encrypted with Truecrypt.
http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability
also note that, for system encryption, the first drive track contains the (unencrypted) TrueCrypt Boot Loader, which can be easily identified as such
Because Truecrypt doesn't do FDE on OSX?
BTW, if anyone has any OSS suggestions for FDE software for OSX, I'd be interested in hearing them.
Ok, just for the sake of argument, lets say it will only take you a month to crack the encryption of a single laptop.
How many laptops did you put into storage while waiting for the first to finish processing?
how many additional laptops will you put into storage waiting for all of those laptops to be processed?
My grandmother became a grandmother at 45, you insensitive clod!
(Mom was born when grandma was 25, I was born 20 years later.)
Erm, could you explain please? So far I have been able to take any Steam DOSBOX game, put it on a PC that has never had Steam installed, and play it just fine. That to me says "No DRM Here".
Now granted, I don't think I've tried using the version of DOSBOX that came with the game... is that what you mean?