I heard of something for data called SafeDisk 2 (SD2). Uses strange bit patterns in the signal whichwhen sent through the scrambler turn into regular bit patterns which confuse the EFM encoder and cause a bad burn. The scrambler is a defined substitution algorithm designed to minimize the cahnce of data causing such patterns. So SD2 takes the bad bit patterns, applies an algorithm (the inverse of the scrambling algorithm perhaps) which, when sent back through the scrambler, result in those bad bit patterns.
Some burners (Philips I believe) can handle this situation. They weren't designed to defeat it, so DMCA doesn't apply yet (but perhaps a certain judge in New York might disagree). However, with VCRs they added a special provision which illegalized any VCRs which did not get messed up by Macrovision, even though they were already on the market and not designed to circumvent. They could pass a DMCA update which mandates a bug in burners to make the protection work, just like they mandate a bug in VCRs to make Macrovision work (which was a sellout of our rights to the content providers and to Macrovision - any other copy protection people got screwed too - how ironic)
They couldn't make it illegal to copy content for fair use, so instead they just standardize it out of existence.
Sure they can. They make it technically hard to use in a way they dislike (i.e. you need to work around some stupid system), and under the magic of the DMCA it is ILLEGAL (according to at least one Federal judge) to do so or to help someone do so by giving them a tool or telling them where to get a tool, or if that certain judge gets his way, even to hint that such a tool might exist.
Anybody can essentially write their own "legislation" outlawing certain uses (including fair use - fair use is NOT a defense to the DMCA) by implementing a protection system. A one bit (key) encryption (invert every bit) and a decoder which "respects" the "rights" in the digital rights management software which controls access to the work would very likely be all that is needed to outlaw any "unauthorized" (by the whim of the copyright holder - fair use provisions of copyright law are overriden) use.
There is a system like the one you describe. It is called private education. There they have the right to expel anyone, with or even without cause. You can get all the law and order you want in some of those schools. Public education is for those that want to not be subject to private control, and hence should get the rights guaranteed by the government (public school is government - any infringement of rights is an action by the government and unconstitutional - the First Amendment definately applies), or those that can not afford private school (this may be changing - with vouchers eventually everyone could go to private school if they chose).
Public education is a needed fall back for those that are not willing, or are unable, to be in a private school environment.
If you make public school like private school, you eliminate a needed choice.
Free education isn't an unalienable right; it's probably a privilege more on order with a driver's license.
Wrong, it is. I think the UN declaration of Human Rights says so, and common morality says so too. Depriving a person of an education is very harmful and wrong.
It is not at all comparable to the privilege of having a drivers' license. And what good is freedom of speech if the government (public school=government) punishes you by denying you an education. There is no free speech if exercising it causes government reprisal, even if it isn't of a criminal or civil lawsuit nature.
Saying one has a right to free speech and then having the gov't punish them for it is just like saing one has a right to speed, but still gets a ticket. It doesn't make any sense.
Free speech is only free if the gov't CAN NOT PUNISH YOU IN ANY WAY, including, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: prison, fines, forcably having your money taken from you and given to someone else (civil judgements), being banned from gov't jobs, etc.
The advantage that MP3 seems to have is that it's an "open" format -- you can copy it, edit it, change it and so on
without a lot of RIAA nonsense.
I agree about openness, but you can't edit MP3 or Vorbis or any other lossy format well. Just like JPEGs degrade when sent through multiple edit and conversion steps, so will a lossy audio format. It will sound bad.
You need to have a lossless version of the content to edit well. Preferably a multi-track original, not after it has been mixed.
Would reverse-engineering the key to make free music play be illegal under the DMCA? It does contain an exception that one can circumvent with the permission of the copyright holder. So if I release music legally, and Windows won't play it because I can't sign it, and I find a way to circumvent the system to access MY content, which I as the copyright holder authorize, is that illegal according to the law or likely to be illegal in Judge Kaplan's opinion?
Here is an interesting thing for the DVD crowd to do. Write a CSS ENcoder. (Yes I know DVD players play unencrypted discs...). Release content encoded with CSS and with an Open Content license. Have people use DeCSS to decrypt it. As the copyright holder, authorize them to do so. Then if anyone sues saying DeCSS is a cirumvention device, say that it is with the authorization of the copyright holder, and blow a hole in the DMCA'a reasoning with its own exemption.
1. Hack the code in either the client, the driver or the kernel. Or hack the hardware. Only needs to be done once, then the means to do so could be distributed. Illegal under the DMCA in the US. DMCA might be unconstitutional - but that often doesn't stop them.
2. Just get 2 sound cards and the best darn audio cable (high quality and shielded! Preferably with gold plated connecters, and as small as possible) you can get and feed the audio out of the secure card into the audio in of a non-secure card (which could be on another PC). And record that.
Digital to analog to digital conversion does far less harm to the signal than MP3 encoding does. Of source, re-encoding back into MP3 might hurt (if I take an MP3, turn it to wav and back again, do I lose info that survived the initial encoding into MP3?)
Maybe fair use, may be legal or illegal under the DMCA, but it is not really circumventing because the conversion from a protected format was done by authorized software - so the actual protection mechanism wasn't circumvented or bypassed - it was used as designed. You are intercepting a non-protected signal, and you might get off on that. Or might not. See a lawyer for advice. we all know of one judge would be convict you no matter how good of a case you make.
And sadly there appears to be no exemption in the DMCA to bypass a system which damages hardware.
Not that the exemptions in the DMCA matter anyway, Judge Kaplan ignored all the ones the DeCSS defense raised. In addition to ignoring the fair use and constitutional issues. Ignoring the rights of the people under the Constitution is quite the norm.
And the DeCSS case proved EVEN IF you can afford good (or great, like Martin Garbus) lawyers and you are legally right, you can still lose. They did.
If your actions hurt the corporate/government complex, they'll hang you. (figuratively for now, but if "economic terrorism" [i.e. your action destroyed a companies "right to profit" and caused them and our country money] legislation comes around - in 20 years it may well be literal - something like THAT would disuade people from posting DeCSS, etc like nothing else would).
Too bad that is now illegal. It is illegal for you to hack systems that you bought.
So when the media distorts things like DeCSS and makes it sound like those "hackers" are equivalent to those that break into other people's systems, tell them this: There is a BIG difference (morally and legally) between using a Slim Jim to break into someone elses car versus breaking into your own (e.g. you left the keys inside or the door locks froze in the winter, etc).
It should be the same with computers. But the DMCA changed that. Any code which restricts your rights is illegal to bypass. Content providers have legislative power to set their own copyright law for their products. Unlike legislators, they aren't elected by the people.
Speed issues? Portability issues?
on
ESR On XML-RPC
·
· Score: 1
Am I the only one who thinks doing XML RPC could end up being slow? XML isn't lightweight. What are the performance considerations? XML is also very free form. How will you understand XML I send you? Could it be like everyone around the world using the same grammer when speaking, but different words? (which would still prevent people from understanding each other)
Well if a company (at least in the USA) wants to play such restrictive hardball (i.e. we permanently terminate your service if you say anything not nice about our policy, etc), we should play hardball back.
Since they are exercising control above and beyond what is needed to provide their service, we should revoke their common carrier status (or the equivalent protections against liability that ISPs get). After all, the telcos get that status, but are required to provide service to all. Why should the ISP get the benefits, but not have the restrictions on its behavior that go along with it?
So if I need to run 2 different apps on a system and they have 2 different incompatible needs, what do I do? Run it on 2 differnet machines? Expensive, inconvenient, and sometimes having the 2 apps on 2 different systems does not meet the requirements of what needs to be done. So basically I am hosed.
I hate to say this, and hope this isn't considered flamebait, but Linux definitely needs more quality control with PRODUCTION releases of libraries and making sure that if it worked in glibc 2.1, it HAD BETTER work in glibc2.2 too.
If that is impossible, because the library behaved in a buggy (or nonstandard or unsupported or inefficient) way, and fixing it would break something that depended on that feature, that is different than just having something no longer work.
However, old apps need to work with new libraries. Here is a solution. Add a libc call called expect_version(). Your program calls it with the version it expects. The library will behave in a way compatible with that version. If that call is not made, have the library behave at a default level of compatibility . Have binary only software be built to issue this call with the version of all the libraries it is designed to run with.
CPU fans do not use normal motors. Your standard DC motor generates enough electromagentic interference due to the contacting and disconnecting and possible arcing at the brushes to interfere with close by sensitive electronics (a CPU in contact with the thing certainly qualifies).
So instead they use a very high speed stepper motor and a circuit board to drive it.
That's why they cose $9 and not 90 cents.
Saying a CPU fan is a trivial device is not accurate.
Sounds like your microwave is leaking radiation. I'd worry more about getting cancer from being nuked all the time you are near it more than I'd worry about interference with my phone!
It further defines "effectively" as requiring a process, treatment, etc to gain access to a work. Here is an encryption routine which would provide protection under the DMCA:
char encrypt(char x) {
return x ^ 'C';
}
char decrypt(char x) {
return x ^ 'C';
}
A simple one byte XOR. Breakable by almost any geek out there.
Some of you will recall the product which actually uses the above protection method.
Scary, but in all fairnmess didn't Clinton say something about us having too much freedom. I think he might have said it on MTV of all places. Sorry I don't have the exact quote.
Neither party is to be trusted, it is just a matter of which one will hurt us the least.
Yeah, but some people just cut and paste from other people's web pages the DOCTYPE tags (with no understanding whatsoever of what it is all about) and then code to a different standard. Just heard about that this week. Sad but true.
Not necessarily. There are people who will try to tap into the lines, even climbing poles (which is insane) to do it. Of course, a cable theft conviction could be the LEAST of your worries if you are doing that. Climb a pole and touch a power line and you are quite likely dead or maimed (many power lines on those poles carry MUCH more than 120/240 volts).
The local cable company here (Las Vegas, NV) alludes to that danger in its anti-cable theft ads.
Slashdot Mirror
Some burners (Philips I believe) can handle this situation. They weren't designed to defeat it, so DMCA doesn't apply yet (but perhaps a certain judge in New York might disagree). However, with VCRs they added a special provision which illegalized any VCRs which did not get messed up by Macrovision, even though they were already on the market and not designed to circumvent. They could pass a DMCA update which mandates a bug in burners to make the protection work, just like they mandate a bug in VCRs to make Macrovision work (which was a sellout of our rights to the content providers and to Macrovision - any other copy protection people got screwed too - how ironic)
Sure they can. They make it technically hard to use in a way they dislike (i.e. you need to work around some stupid system), and under the magic of the DMCA it is ILLEGAL (according to at least one Federal judge) to do so or to help someone do so by giving them a tool or telling them where to get a tool, or if that certain judge gets his way, even to hint that such a tool might exist.
Anybody can essentially write their own "legislation" outlawing certain uses (including fair use - fair use is NOT a defense to the DMCA) by implementing a protection system. A one bit (key) encryption (invert every bit) and a decoder which "respects" the "rights" in the digital rights management software which controls access to the work would very likely be all that is needed to outlaw any "unauthorized" (by the whim of the copyright holder - fair use provisions of copyright law are overriden) use.
Good bye freedom.
I don't see how is LIFE could be in danger, unless perhaps his case gets tried by a certain judge in the Southern District of New York. ;)
Useful data? The real question is how fast can a 100 MHz (or any speed CPU) can run a denial of service attack. :)
Run it for long at that speed and your statement could LITERALLY become true.
Public education is a needed fall back for those that are not willing, or are unable, to be in a private school environment.
If you make public school like private school, you eliminate a needed choice.
Wrong, it is. I think the UN declaration of Human Rights says so, and common morality says so too. Depriving a person of an education is very harmful and wrong.
It is not at all comparable to the privilege of having a drivers' license. And what good is freedom of speech if the government (public school=government) punishes you by denying you an education. There is no free speech if exercising it causes government reprisal, even if it isn't of a criminal or civil lawsuit nature.
Saying one has a right to free speech and then having the gov't punish them for it is just like saing one has a right to speed, but still gets a ticket. It doesn't make any sense.
Free speech is only free if the gov't CAN NOT PUNISH YOU IN ANY WAY, including, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: prison, fines, forcably having your money taken from you and given to someone else (civil judgements), being banned from gov't jobs, etc.
I agree about openness, but you can't edit MP3 or Vorbis or any other lossy format well. Just like JPEGs degrade when sent through multiple edit and conversion steps, so will a lossy audio format. It will sound bad. You need to have a lossless version of the content to edit well. Preferably a multi-track original, not after it has been mixed.
Would reverse-engineering the key to make free music play be illegal under the DMCA? It does contain an exception that one can circumvent with the permission of the copyright holder. So if I release music legally, and Windows won't play it because I can't sign it, and I find a way to circumvent the system to access MY content, which I as the copyright holder authorize, is that illegal according to the law or likely to be illegal in Judge Kaplan's opinion?
Here is an interesting thing for the DVD crowd to do. Write a CSS ENcoder. (Yes I know DVD players play unencrypted discs...). Release content encoded with CSS and with an Open Content license. Have people use DeCSS to decrypt it. As the copyright holder, authorize them to do so. Then if anyone sues saying DeCSS is a cirumvention device, say that it is with the authorization of the copyright holder, and blow a hole in the DMCA'a reasoning with its own exemption.
That could make a great test case.
It already does.
2 workarounds:
1. Hack the code in either the client, the driver or the kernel. Or hack the hardware. Only needs to be done once, then the means to do so could be distributed. Illegal under the DMCA in the US. DMCA might be unconstitutional - but that often doesn't stop them.
2. Just get 2 sound cards and the best darn audio cable (high quality and shielded! Preferably with gold plated connecters, and as small as possible) you can get and feed the audio out of the secure card into the audio in of a non-secure card (which could be on another PC). And record that.
Digital to analog to digital conversion does far less harm to the signal than MP3 encoding does. Of source, re-encoding back into MP3 might hurt (if I take an MP3, turn it to wav and back again, do I lose info that survived the initial encoding into MP3?)
Maybe fair use, may be legal or illegal under the DMCA, but it is not really circumventing because the conversion from a protected format was done by authorized software - so the actual protection mechanism wasn't circumvented or bypassed - it was used as designed. You are intercepting a non-protected signal, and you might get off on that. Or might not. See a lawyer for advice. we all know of one judge would be convict you no matter how good of a case you make.
And sadly there appears to be no exemption in the DMCA to bypass a system which damages hardware.
Not that the exemptions in the DMCA matter anyway, Judge Kaplan ignored all the ones the DeCSS defense raised. In addition to ignoring the fair use and constitutional issues. Ignoring the rights of the people under the Constitution is quite the norm.
And the DeCSS case proved EVEN IF you can afford good (or great, like Martin Garbus) lawyers and you are legally right, you can still lose. They did.
If your actions hurt the corporate/government complex, they'll hang you. (figuratively for now, but if "economic terrorism" [i.e. your action destroyed a companies "right to profit" and caused them and our country money] legislation comes around - in 20 years it may well be literal - something like THAT would disuade people from posting DeCSS, etc like nothing else would).
So when the media distorts things like DeCSS and makes it sound like those "hackers" are equivalent to those that break into other people's systems, tell them this: There is a BIG difference (morally and legally) between using a Slim Jim to break into someone elses car versus breaking into your own (e.g. you left the keys inside or the door locks froze in the winter, etc).
It should be the same with computers. But the DMCA changed that. Any code which restricts your rights is illegal to bypass. Content providers have legislative power to set their own copyright law for their products. Unlike legislators, they aren't elected by the people.
Not a flame, just a question.
Hmmm, kinda like the people on Slashdot? ;)
Since they are exercising control above and beyond what is needed to provide their service, we should revoke their common carrier status (or the equivalent protections against liability that ISPs get). After all, the telcos get that status, but are required to provide service to all. Why should the ISP get the benefits, but not have the restrictions on its behavior that go along with it?
I hate to say this, and hope this isn't considered flamebait, but Linux definitely needs more quality control with PRODUCTION releases of libraries and making sure that if it worked in glibc 2.1, it HAD BETTER work in glibc2.2 too.
If that is impossible, because the library behaved in a buggy (or nonstandard or unsupported or inefficient) way, and fixing it would break something that depended on that feature, that is different than just having something no longer work.
However, old apps need to work with new libraries. Here is a solution. Add a libc call called expect_version(). Your program calls it with the version it expects. The library will behave in a way compatible with that version. If that call is not made, have the library behave at a default level of compatibility . Have binary only software be built to issue this call with the version of all the libraries it is designed to run with.
AOL OS wil have to wait for the Microsoft AOL/Time Warner merger, which will probably take place later this year.
So instead they use a very high speed stepper motor and a circuit board to drive it.
That's why they cose $9 and not 90 cents.
Saying a CPU fan is a trivial device is not accurate.
Heck, the US needs flash like it needs raw sewage in the water. ;)
Sounds like your microwave is leaking radiation. I'd worry more about getting cancer from being nuked all the time you are near it more than I'd worry about interference with my phone!
It further defines "effectively" as requiring a process, treatment, etc to gain access to a work. Here is an encryption routine which would provide protection under the DMCA:
char encrypt(char x) {
return x ^ 'C';
}
char decrypt(char x) {
return x ^ 'C';
}
A simple one byte XOR. Breakable by almost any geek out there.
Some of you will recall the product which actually uses the above protection method.
Scary, but in all fairnmess didn't Clinton say something about us having too much freedom. I think he might have said it on MTV of all places. Sorry I don't have the exact quote.
Neither party is to be trusted, it is just a matter of which one will hurt us the least.
Yeah, but some people just cut and paste from other people's web pages the DOCTYPE tags (with no understanding whatsoever of what it is all about) and then code to a different standard. Just heard about that this week. Sad but true.
The local cable company here (Las Vegas, NV) alludes to that danger in its anti-cable theft ads.