We have two such devices already, the first is the polygraph, although that one has been wisely disallowed in court it is widely used in the private sector. Tossing straws would be cheaper though.
The second device is that actually employed by the courts, it's called a "Jury." I have no solution to that problem though, as all alternatives are noticabley worse.
Oddly enough, his "joke" is also right to some degree. You can gain a certain margin of security by running "obsolete" software that has been well maintained and cramming it onto a minimum spec hardware platform.
Nothing has changed. The CSS key is not a decryption key. It is a key that fits a lock, just like the key to your house. The items in your house are not encrypted, you only need the key to access them.
A DVD player checks the validity of the key on the CD and only allows the player to access the unencrypted video files if the key is valid. It's a lock box. That's all.
Nor is it true that DVD recorders cannot burn the key tracks. Otherwise there would be no 321 Studios copy product in the first place. That again is a function of the key and the playback software/decoder. There are any number of "products" perfectly capable of allowing a DVD burner to make a perfect bit by bit copy of the CD, which includes a perfect, fully functional, copy of the key.
CSS is a key, not a code key, and it is playback protection, not copy protection, and a bit by bit copy will only play in a CSS equiped machine.
The individual video files on a DVD may be played back a number of ways, as they are not encrypted.
You can make a copy of a glass. Hell, you can even use a broken glass to do it with.
There are thousands of web sites to help you in this quest.
Yes, to forstall your argument, it is difficult, yes it is more expensive than just buying another glass. That has nothing to do with the fact that it is both possible, legal and people actually do it.
Bearing in mind, of course, that the CNET article is factually wrong, the video data on a DVD is not encrypted at all, the copy software does not circumvent CSS, retaining it in the copies it makes and said copies employ CSS technology perfectly by preventing playback on non CSS equiped equipment and that the DMCA explicitly has a provision for retaining fair use rights.
I'm guessing the hypocrite in you would have reared it's ugly head.
And this is a good example of discarding all the data, coming to any conclusion you wish, and then putting the onus on others to debunk your unsupported premise, which, as it happens, has no logical bearing on the argument you are attacking.
A very popular methodolgy, but not a valid one.
For purposes of bias I will point out my posting history will show that I use Windows 98, Mac System 7, Mac OS8 and various flavors of Linux at the moment, but have a very strong preference for Linux for explicitly stated reasons, some of which relate directly to the deleted data in this study, some of which do not. You'll find that my position is at least unbiased enough that I have been accused of being both an MS lackey and a Linux zealot, although I don't recall that I've ever been accused of being a Mac head. I have never so much as sat at a BSD terminal or an OSX box, although I would have no particular objection to doing so, it would be fun, and I am inclined to believe that BSD is more secure than the majority of Linux distros at the moment.
If you wish to debunk this you will have to do your own homework in finding evidence to the contrary.
Ad hominem strawman arguments will be promptly and cheerfully ignored.
5. The planet had two moons, and they were both ours.
They kinda lost me right there. Suspension of disbelief went all poof and shit. This is one case where I think they coulda taken a little from the real sand budget and used it for a bit of cgi.
Most of the rest of your complaints reverse my issue. The movie had a big budget for sets, music, location shooting, etc. Yes, in some respects it is stunning.
The TV series is, well, a TV series. But the stories are overall better, the acting is decent and RDA has really come into his own.
On the whole this is one of the few cases where I think the series surpasses the movie by a fair margin.
Yep, pretty much it. They've been flogging these things as long as I've been alive, and when people ask me what my "sign" is I say "Sputnik."
No one wants them.
Oh sure, there are people who say they want them, just read a good many of the posts here, but when it comes down to it they want to be able to get out of the shower to answer that call from mom without looking like they just got out of the shower or having to explain why they won't turn the video on.
Teenage girls with cellphones at the mall may be a different market, we'll see.
I relize that Patents are different from Copyright in that patents must be defended to remain valid.. But does it prevent any $0 licence?
Patents do not necessarily need to be defended to remain valid. In fact the presumption is that they do not. It might even be fair to say that the way things are right now most patents aren't defended. They just sit in the vault until the time is right.
You'll find many of the morally offensive legal battles going on right now are over patents that sat latent for years before the holder decided to file a suit against someone with money.
However, a good many patents are also given a public license, a $0 grant of use. The idea is not only valid but widely used.
But, patents are not like copyright which simply exist from the moment of creation. Obtaining a patent is a legal process which is time consuming and costly. While it is practical for a rich corporation with a flock of its own patent attorneys to file patent claims by the wheelbarrow full, the independent inventor may not have the means to file a single patent, even on a very lucrative invention.
And then yes, holding a patent is pointless if you can't defend it. Obtaining a patent might only cost a few hundreds to thousands of dollars. Defending one against Sony or Microsoft might well cost millions.
Calling a passenger a "Monkey" to his (or her!) face, will probably get you hit.
Oddly enough, in a peculiar sort of way, that supports my premise. I've found that calling an Australian a "monkey" to his(or her!) face, will probably get me hit too.
Makes me wonder what they doing riding a monkey bike in the first place.
Well, it's an interesting opinion, although it differs from the dictionary definition. Nor am I entirely certain your conclusions about the toy robot are true. I don't see why adding sensors and a microcontroller to a fully functional mechanical man wouldn't create an autonomous mechanical man, or the difference between this mechanical man's controller being remote from himself and the industrial robot's controller being remote from itself.
I could add such sensors and microcontrolers to my R/C car easily enough and your definition seems to rely on being able to add things to a machine to make it a robot.
You'll also have to hold my hand through the micro scale control of movements issue. I'm at a loss as the to relevance of that.
I would hold that my analog thermostat, which has a sensor and reacts autonomously to enviromental factors to perform a useful mechcanical funtion is a robot, although lacking a microcontoller, or any electronic way of modifying its behaviour.
I take it you would disagree with me, and also hold that BEAM robots are not robots if they lack a microcontroler?
My jokes are often recursive references. That means that my audience must know the reference, because to supply the quote is to ruin the joke.
Kudos to you, sir, for having the sort of mental curiosity to supply yourself with the needed reference. I think we need not fear your falling into the fate of your ulitmate quotation.
Had I wished to be even snippier and release a bit of a firestorm instead of make my point I might have added to my list:
"How about some nice, rich, self-describing, heirarchical data stored in a flat file with all logic passed to the application level?"
That would have invoked the full form of my Santayana reference, as well as hinting at:
"Fashion is something barbarous, for it produces innovation without reason and imitation without benefit."
Which rather nicely sums up the software field these days.
I have to rely on context to descern what I believe your meaning to be, because you have answered my question with a nonsequitor question.
I take your question to refer to the toy robot. I am ignorant of it beyond the text material linked to in the story. I do know that Tilden's insect robots made of little more than a few discrete electronic componants and bits of bent wire perform amazing things without any programable functions at all. I'm not sure why adding programability would make this robot less capable, but anything I might have to say along that line would be pure speculation on my part.
Therefore I declined to address issues of the robot at all.
My question was explicitly aimed at the definition of robot in general, which was the main point of the parent post.
Slashdot Mirror
We have two such devices already, the first is the polygraph, although that one has been wisely disallowed in court it is widely used in the private sector. Tossing straws would be cheaper though.
The second device is that actually employed by the courts, it's called a "Jury." I have no solution to that problem though, as all alternatives are noticabley worse.
KFG
Oddly enough, his "joke" is also right to some degree. You can gain a certain margin of security by running "obsolete" software that has been well maintained and cramming it onto a minimum spec hardware platform.
KFG
Nothing has changed. The CSS key is not a decryption key. It is a key that fits a lock, just like the key to your house. The items in your house are not encrypted, you only need the key to access them.
A DVD player checks the validity of the key on the CD and only allows the player to access the unencrypted video files if the key is valid. It's a lock box. That's all.
Nor is it true that DVD recorders cannot burn the key tracks. Otherwise there would be no 321 Studios copy product in the first place. That again is a function of the key and the playback software/decoder. There are any number of "products" perfectly capable of allowing a DVD burner to make a perfect bit by bit copy of the CD, which includes a perfect, fully functional, copy of the key.
CSS is a key, not a code key, and it is playback protection, not copy protection, and a bit by bit copy will only play in a CSS equiped machine.
The individual video files on a DVD may be played back a number of ways, as they are not encrypted.
KFG
You can make a copy of a glass. Hell, you can even use a broken glass to do it with.
There are thousands of web sites to help you in this quest.
Yes, to forstall your argument, it is difficult, yes it is more expensive than just buying another glass. That has nothing to do with the fact that it is both possible, legal and people actually do it.
KFG
Bearing in mind, of course, that the CNET article is factually wrong, the video data on a DVD is not encrypted at all, the copy software does not circumvent CSS, retaining it in the copies it makes and said copies employ CSS technology perfectly by preventing playback on non CSS equiped equipment and that the DMCA explicitly has a provision for retaining fair use rights.
Other than that, yeah, it's black and white.
KFG
Or is, perhaps, the poster's nick, final paragraph and posting history an indication of a troll?
KFG
I'm guessing the hypocrite in you would have reared it's ugly head.
And this is a good example of discarding all the data, coming to any conclusion you wish, and then putting the onus on others to debunk your unsupported premise, which, as it happens, has no logical bearing on the argument you are attacking.
A very popular methodolgy, but not a valid one.
For purposes of bias I will point out my posting history will show that I use Windows 98, Mac System 7, Mac OS8 and various flavors of Linux at the moment, but have a very strong preference for Linux for explicitly stated reasons, some of which relate directly to the deleted data in this study, some of which do not. You'll find that my position is at least unbiased enough that I have been accused of being both an MS lackey and a Linux zealot, although I don't recall that I've ever been accused of being a Mac head. I have never so much as sat at a BSD terminal or an OSX box, although I would have no particular objection to doing so, it would be fun, and I am inclined to believe that BSD is more secure than the majority of Linux distros at the moment.
If you wish to debunk this you will have to do your own homework in finding evidence to the contrary.
Ad hominem strawman arguments will be promptly and cheerfully ignored.
KFG
5. The planet had two moons, and they were both ours.
They kinda lost me right there. Suspension of disbelief went all poof and shit. This is one case where I think they coulda taken a little from the real sand budget and used it for a bit of cgi.
Most of the rest of your complaints reverse my issue. The movie had a big budget for sets, music, location shooting, etc. Yes, in some respects it is stunning.
The TV series is, well, a TV series. But the stories are overall better, the acting is decent and RDA has really come into his own.
On the whole this is one of the few cases where I think the series surpasses the movie by a fair margin.
KFG
Same dif.
KFG
Yep, pretty much it. They've been flogging these things as long as I've been alive, and when people ask me what my "sign" is I say "Sputnik."
No one wants them.
Oh sure, there are people who say they want them, just read a good many of the posts here, but when it comes down to it they want to be able to get out of the shower to answer that call from mom without looking like they just got out of the shower or having to explain why they won't turn the video on.
Teenage girls with cellphones at the mall may be a different market, we'll see.
KFG
I relize that Patents are different from Copyright in that patents must be defended to remain valid.. But does it prevent any $0 licence?
Patents do not necessarily need to be defended to remain valid. In fact the presumption is that they do not. It might even be fair to say that the way things are right now most patents aren't defended. They just sit in the vault until the time is right.
You'll find many of the morally offensive legal battles going on right now are over patents that sat latent for years before the holder decided to file a suit against someone with money.
However, a good many patents are also given a public license, a $0 grant of use. The idea is not only valid but widely used.
But, patents are not like copyright which simply exist from the moment of creation. Obtaining a patent is a legal process which is time consuming and costly. While it is practical for a rich corporation with a flock of its own patent attorneys to file patent claims by the wheelbarrow full, the independent inventor may not have the means to file a single patent, even on a very lucrative invention.
And then yes, holding a patent is pointless if you can't defend it. Obtaining a patent might only cost a few hundreds to thousands of dollars. Defending one against Sony or Microsoft might well cost millions.
It's a sticky wicket I'm afraid.
KFG
Perhaps there needs to be a cohesive international set of laws for such matters.
That is what we are in the process of acquiring.
That is the problem.
KFG
Calling a passenger a "Monkey" to his (or her!) face, will probably get you hit.
Oddly enough, in a peculiar sort of way, that supports my premise. I've found that calling an Australian a "monkey" to his(or her!) face, will probably get me hit too.
Makes me wonder what they doing riding a monkey bike in the first place.
KFG
Whew! Good thing Mcflipper and Walmart cashier doesn't require training.
Empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
KFG
Read your Homer. . .
"Ooooooooooo, Mythos!"
KFG
I declined to say something along the lines of "I don't know, nothing like a nice big thumper between your legs", though.
It may lack recursiveness, but it's a bit risky with this crowd.
KFG
When I die, bury me low
Where I can hear, da petroleum flow
A sweeter sound, I never did know
Da rollin' mills of New Joisey.
KFG
I think "fast" is the single adjective not ever applied to a Segway before this moment.
KFG
Worse than piloting an old style racing sidehack...
Yeah, but maybe not quite so bad as being the monkey. Where do they find those guys, Australia?
KFG
Well, it's an interesting opinion, although it differs from the dictionary definition. Nor am I entirely certain your conclusions about the toy robot are true. I don't see why adding sensors and a microcontroller to a fully functional mechanical man wouldn't create an autonomous mechanical man, or the difference between this mechanical man's controller being remote from himself and the industrial robot's controller being remote from itself.
I could add such sensors and microcontrolers to my R/C car easily enough and your definition seems to rely on being able to add things to a machine to make it a robot.
You'll also have to hold my hand through the micro scale control of movements issue. I'm at a loss as the to relevance of that.
I would hold that my analog thermostat, which has a sensor and reacts autonomously to enviromental factors to perform a useful mechcanical funtion is a robot, although lacking a microcontoller, or any electronic way of modifying its behaviour.
I take it you would disagree with me, and also hold that BEAM robots are not robots if they lack a microcontroler?
KFG
My jokes are often recursive references. That means that my audience must know the reference, because to supply the quote is to ruin the joke.
Kudos to you, sir, for having the sort of mental curiosity to supply yourself with the needed reference. I think we need not fear your falling into the fate of your ulitmate quotation.
Had I wished to be even snippier and release a bit of a firestorm instead of make my point I might have added to my list:
"How about some nice, rich, self-describing, heirarchical data stored in a flat file with all logic passed to the application level?"
That would have invoked the full form of my Santayana reference, as well as hinting at:
"Fashion is something barbarous, for it produces innovation without reason and imitation without benefit."
Which rather nicely sums up the software field these days.
KFG
I have to rely on context to descern what I believe your meaning to be, because you have answered my question with a nonsequitor question.
I take your question to refer to the toy robot. I am ignorant of it beyond the text material linked to in the story. I do know that Tilden's insect robots made of little more than a few discrete electronic componants and bits of bent wire perform amazing things without any programable functions at all. I'm not sure why adding programability would make this robot less capable, but anything I might have to say along that line would be pure speculation on my part.
Therefore I declined to address issues of the robot at all.
My question was explicitly aimed at the definition of robot in general, which was the main point of the parent post.
KFG
Is a programable industrial robot a robot?
KFG
The mice man, the mice!
KFG
No, the +1 Funny part is that it died the same God damned way.
KFG