Interesting that you mention Independence war. I have copies of both 1 and 2 on disc and neither of them have any sort of DRM. Iwar 2 has a disc check, but it's removed by the official patch. It's been a while, but I've run Iwar 1 on modern systems. In fact, this computer, which I use as my gamer rig has run it. WinXP if that matters. AFAIK it doesn't need any special compatibility. Although you might have trouble with input devices, if you use anything other than a fairly standard Jstick.
They have talked about this new DRM system before. Basically they think they can sell it to the game publishers on the basis that "only one person can play it at a time". Similar to the way steam works. IE: I can give my steam account to anyone, but only one of us can use it at any given time. I think that most of the publishers will stick with more traditional DRM, and continue moving away from PC games as a whole (since the console market is somewhat more secure). In any case, to answer your question. Yes.
If you prefer to believe that you aren't capable of designing and implementing such a system, that's fine. I know differently. If you would like to believe that it costs multiple million dollars to install a traffic light, or a stop sign, you are free to believe that, and your local government appreciates the support.
Get a job in the civilian engineering fields, or better yet, government, and tell me that the waste isn't astronomical after you've dealt with it for 10 years.
This is bullshit. Typical western capitalist viewpoint. You don't need a dozen specialists and millions of dollars to create a traffic monitoring system. You need some off the shelf hardware and a few people willing to work on it till it functions properly. First off, you don't use radar. At all. You use cameras and lasers. (IR band preferably). Second, it doesn't take an engineer to build a gizmo.
They say necessity is the mother of invention. THEY are right. If it's needed, it can probably be done, and done well no less. This guy isn't trying to invent a new technology. He's wanting to use existing technology to do something other people have already done.
A simple run down of a possible build out, right off the top of my head... casing, power supply (backup?), 1 video camera (any camcorder will work, or specialized cameras are an option), 1 or 2 IR lasers with rangefinding capability, a thin client control system with data capture and Wifi or cellular link. Well shit, we're done with hardware. Now all you need is proper software, most of which already exists and would simply need to be modified. I could build a unit like this, that could clock your speed through it's field of view, capture your cars image, the license plate and maybe the drivers face. I could build it for maybe 500$ each unit, probably figure 1000$ just to be safe. Where I come from this sort of thing is a weekend project. Getting it implemented as a part of the legal system would be the hard part.
If installing traffic enforcement cameras costs millions of dollars, it's because of bureaucracy and waste. Not because the actual system cost is really that high. My understanding is that most of that cost in the US comes from built in contract padding and kick backs, and the legal obligations that our litigious society requires. Such things are allowed to continue because people like you think that's the only way it can work. You are wrong.
People who drink are CERTAIN to be LESS capable of operating a vehicle safely, and are charged with breaking the law in accordance. It has nothing what so ever to do with statistics. The degree of impairment, and the results are statistically derived, but the crime itself is based on known FACTS. Get a grip.
What, you mean like the thousands of cameras pointing at streets already? The ones I can click on and get an image, in real time, of that street? The ones the state DOT already operates on every major highway, freeway and intersection? Like those?
What the hell are you afraid of exactly? That in the modern age of information someone COULD find out almost anything about you, where you are at any given moment and every word you've ever said online? I wonder if you are young enough to think that wasn't always possible.
Lets use a more clear cut example. Suppose a document exists that is classified, and shows incontrovertible evidence that the sitting POTUS rigged the election. Suppose you are a clerk that rightfully, through your job duties comes across such a document. Suppose then you leak it. Doesn't the exculpatory nature of the document demand that it be released to the public so that proper democratic elections can take place? Does that fact then release you from criminal proceedings related to you breaking classification?
I believe it does. I believe that once you have come across such a document, the only ethical choice you have left is WHERE to leak it. Not IF you leak it. There is precedent for such as I describe here in this country.
I wonder if that's strictly true. See, you seem to be forgetting that to hide the jewish persons to begin with, the characters in our story must have already decided that the "rule" in question was unjust/unethical. Do not Deontological ethical systems allows for the possibility that the "rule" makers are unethical, and therefore their rules are not ethical, and therefore breaking them does not constitute a failure of ethics? Or is that really the basis of this distinction, that "rules are rules" no matter the setting or consequences? (serious question, not trolling)
Please oh please describe how you think that would work? Even if we go into an completely hypothetical world where such "codes" are fixed, and not easily and instantly changed, and even if we assume these nuclear arsenals were connected to the internet at large... please tell me how releasing such codes would result in you being responsible for any deaths what so ever? Even if we presume north korea would launch our own nuclear weapons against us, doesn't that make THEM responsible for deaths, and you, at most, a contributor?
In simple terms, providing information does not constitute responsibility for the use of that information.
What if the democratic process isn't working either? What then? Playing by the rules is all good and well, when everyone plays by the rules. However, when one party either doesn't play by the rules, or continually changes the rules to suite their own agenda, then it's time for some dissent. It was once considered the highest form of patriotism. Apparently now it's treason. How far have we fallen from out noble roots? How much further are you prepared to allow your government to take you?
What happens when the oversight committee finds breach, but covers it up because that is what is deemed "best for the nation as a whole"? Is that your democratic process at work?
I'm not taking sides here. I'm just asking questions. I'm not sure I believe the democratic process is broken. I'm not sure it's not either. However, part of that process is getting information about the government doing things it's not supposed to do out into the public domain. That is why we have journalistic shield laws.
Arguably, he already has, and AFAIK, is still alive. Furthermore, while I'm not naive enough to believe it, our government has explicitly stated that they don't do that sort of thing (anymore)((publicly)). At this point Assange is a public figure, his death would not come without some fairly serious questions. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that given the first, and second points here, "they" will not act to "end" him... not directly. This is the sort of thing that smear campaigns are for.
That makes no sense what so ever. Bits can be code, and code can be bits. Despite any convoluted circumstance you come up with, EVERYTHING on your computer is bits. Period. In the context of a computer, data/code/bits are interchangeable. Only programmers make the semantic distinction between "code" and "data", and then only because it's convenient, not because there is any inherent difference in form.
This is such a comical misunderstanding of the phrase "security through obscurity" that I can't help but think you are trolling.
On the subject of your front door lock... that's a tumbler lock, and while you may argue that the key is the obscure part here, I would argue that such a lock operates on KNOWN principles, and does not employ any obfuscation what so ever. While a lock that looked like a standard tumbler lock, but actually used a secret combination of turns and push/pull on the key itself would in fact be a lock using obfuscation for security. Ideally, only the proper key, used in the proper way would unlock it. In this way you have obfuscated the locking mechanism, and an essential part to this is not letting anyone see inside the lock. Which brings us back to the application of that term to computer science. If I can see your software, and make the effort to understand it fully, any security through obfuscation will be defeated. While if you use strong encryption, even though I can see you doing it, I can't defeat it. Get it?
Oh... yeah I should have figured that out. In any case, that's ok. We don't really want the fed getting any more involved in public schools. This should be handled at the local level. The only time I want to see the fed getting involved is if this kind of thing happens across multiple states.
Are you implying that a citizen of Canada, or Mexico, or Panama might correctly call themselves "american"? I suppose technically speaking this would be correct, however, the meanings we give to words are as much a result of intent, as of usage. "american" has long been understood to mean a citizen of the United States of America.
That being said, I kinda like USAian. Maybe just USian?
I'm pretty sure that it is in fact illegal to take pictures IN A PRIVATE RESIDENCE without the express permission of the owner. Consider that if it is not illegal, why do cops need a warrant to do such things?
It really doesn't set a precedent of any kind. First off, there may still be local criminal filings, and almost certainly a civil suit. If I had kids in that school, you can fucking well bet I'd be talking to a lawyer. I'd be suing for anything and everything, and I'd also be lobbying the school board, and or local parents to replace the entire school board, and then replace the entire administration and staff that were privy to this.
Intent or not, this was a serious breach of privacy. It's also potentially a violation of any number of anti-spying laws. Is it actually legal for a school to install a video camera in my home? If it is, maybe it's time to change the law. If it isn't, why aren't these people being put before a judge? This entire thing reeks. School administrations have gotten just a little out of control lately, and it's about time we smack them back into line. Since we aren't supposed to take someone out behind the gym and beat sense into them anymore, that leaves the political, or legal avenues. The Fed declining to prosecute doesn't constitute an end to the legal front.
Some truth hidings result in people dying and it being covered up. Just saying, that goes both ways. You can have your "top secret" truths, when I can have accountability and oversight. Wanna trade? OH, why not?
well... there was that one video.... The one where a helicopter crew murdered a bunch of journalists and civilians. (and maybe one guy with a gun).
Don't get me wrong, the simple answer to that situation is don't hang around an active war zone, and you won't get gunned down by 20mm rounds. However, that only goes so far towards "free fire zone".
Also, you are welcome to shit yourself where you so please. Freedom is just grand isn't it?
The word aggression... you keep using it, are you sure you know what it means?
Are you saying that IF "Sweden" publishes classified US documents, that it would be "ok" for the USA to... oh I don't know... starting killing people? You know laughably little about international politics. A flag member of the EU, and a sovereign nation in good standing with the UN and USA is not subject to any such thing for anything short of an act of war. Leaking classified documents is messy, but it's not an act of war.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting that you mention Independence war. I have copies of both 1 and 2 on disc and neither of them have any sort of DRM. Iwar 2 has a disc check, but it's removed by the official patch. It's been a while, but I've run Iwar 1 on modern systems. In fact, this computer, which I use as my gamer rig has run it. WinXP if that matters. AFAIK it doesn't need any special compatibility. Although you might have trouble with input devices, if you use anything other than a fairly standard Jstick.
They have talked about this new DRM system before. Basically they think they can sell it to the game publishers on the basis that "only one person can play it at a time". Similar to the way steam works. IE: I can give my steam account to anyone, but only one of us can use it at any given time. I think that most of the publishers will stick with more traditional DRM, and continue moving away from PC games as a whole (since the console market is somewhat more secure). In any case, to answer your question. Yes.
If you prefer to believe that you aren't capable of designing and implementing such a system, that's fine. I know differently. If you would like to believe that it costs multiple million dollars to install a traffic light, or a stop sign, you are free to believe that, and your local government appreciates the support.
Get a job in the civilian engineering fields, or better yet, government, and tell me that the waste isn't astronomical after you've dealt with it for 10 years.
This is bullshit. Typical western capitalist viewpoint. You don't need a dozen specialists and millions of dollars to create a traffic monitoring system. You need some off the shelf hardware and a few people willing to work on it till it functions properly. First off, you don't use radar. At all. You use cameras and lasers. (IR band preferably). Second, it doesn't take an engineer to build a gizmo.
They say necessity is the mother of invention. THEY are right. If it's needed, it can probably be done, and done well no less. This guy isn't trying to invent a new technology. He's wanting to use existing technology to do something other people have already done.
A simple run down of a possible build out, right off the top of my head... casing, power supply (backup?), 1 video camera (any camcorder will work, or specialized cameras are an option), 1 or 2 IR lasers with rangefinding capability, a thin client control system with data capture and Wifi or cellular link. Well shit, we're done with hardware. Now all you need is proper software, most of which already exists and would simply need to be modified. I could build a unit like this, that could clock your speed through it's field of view, capture your cars image, the license plate and maybe the drivers face. I could build it for maybe 500$ each unit, probably figure 1000$ just to be safe. Where I come from this sort of thing is a weekend project. Getting it implemented as a part of the legal system would be the hard part.
If installing traffic enforcement cameras costs millions of dollars, it's because of bureaucracy and waste. Not because the actual system cost is really that high. My understanding is that most of that cost in the US comes from built in contract padding and kick backs, and the legal obligations that our litigious society requires. Such things are allowed to continue because people like you think that's the only way it can work. You are wrong.
People who drink are CERTAIN to be LESS capable of operating a vehicle safely, and are charged with breaking the law in accordance. It has nothing what so ever to do with statistics. The degree of impairment, and the results are statistically derived, but the crime itself is based on known FACTS. Get a grip.
What, you mean like the thousands of cameras pointing at streets already? The ones I can click on and get an image, in real time, of that street? The ones the state DOT already operates on every major highway, freeway and intersection? Like those?
What the hell are you afraid of exactly? That in the modern age of information someone COULD find out almost anything about you, where you are at any given moment and every word you've ever said online? I wonder if you are young enough to think that wasn't always possible.
This was written as the most beautiful bit of satire EVER. Right? right?
I wish I had mod points today. Quoting from "drinking out of cups" should earn you +1 internets.
No way. Dick already knows when his wife and kids are home alone.
Lets use a more clear cut example. Suppose a document exists that is classified, and shows incontrovertible evidence that the sitting POTUS rigged the election. Suppose you are a clerk that rightfully, through your job duties comes across such a document. Suppose then you leak it. Doesn't the exculpatory nature of the document demand that it be released to the public so that proper democratic elections can take place? Does that fact then release you from criminal proceedings related to you breaking classification?
I believe it does. I believe that once you have come across such a document, the only ethical choice you have left is WHERE to leak it. Not IF you leak it. There is precedent for such as I describe here in this country.
My what short memories we have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Th%E1%BB%8B_Kim_Ph%C3%BAc
I wonder if that's strictly true. See, you seem to be forgetting that to hide the jewish persons to begin with, the characters in our story must have already decided that the "rule" in question was unjust/unethical. Do not Deontological ethical systems allows for the possibility that the "rule" makers are unethical, and therefore their rules are not ethical, and therefore breaking them does not constitute a failure of ethics? Or is that really the basis of this distinction, that "rules are rules" no matter the setting or consequences? (serious question, not trolling)
Please oh please describe how you think that would work? Even if we go into an completely hypothetical world where such "codes" are fixed, and not easily and instantly changed, and even if we assume these nuclear arsenals were connected to the internet at large... please tell me how releasing such codes would result in you being responsible for any deaths what so ever? Even if we presume north korea would launch our own nuclear weapons against us, doesn't that make THEM responsible for deaths, and you, at most, a contributor?
In simple terms, providing information does not constitute responsibility for the use of that information.
What if the democratic process isn't working either? What then? Playing by the rules is all good and well, when everyone plays by the rules. However, when one party either doesn't play by the rules, or continually changes the rules to suite their own agenda, then it's time for some dissent. It was once considered the highest form of patriotism. Apparently now it's treason. How far have we fallen from out noble roots? How much further are you prepared to allow your government to take you?
What happens when the oversight committee finds breach, but covers it up because that is what is deemed "best for the nation as a whole"? Is that your democratic process at work?
I'm not taking sides here. I'm just asking questions. I'm not sure I believe the democratic process is broken. I'm not sure it's not either. However, part of that process is getting information about the government doing things it's not supposed to do out into the public domain. That is why we have journalistic shield laws.
Arguably, he already has, and AFAIK, is still alive. Furthermore, while I'm not naive enough to believe it, our government has explicitly stated that they don't do that sort of thing (anymore)((publicly)). At this point Assange is a public figure, his death would not come without some fairly serious questions. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that given the first, and second points here, "they" will not act to "end" him... not directly. This is the sort of thing that smear campaigns are for.
That makes no sense what so ever. Bits can be code, and code can be bits. Despite any convoluted circumstance you come up with, EVERYTHING on your computer is bits. Period. In the context of a computer, data/code/bits are interchangeable. Only programmers make the semantic distinction between "code" and "data", and then only because it's convenient, not because there is any inherent difference in form.
This is such a comical misunderstanding of the phrase "security through obscurity" that I can't help but think you are trolling.
On the subject of your front door lock... that's a tumbler lock, and while you may argue that the key is the obscure part here, I would argue that such a lock operates on KNOWN principles, and does not employ any obfuscation what so ever. While a lock that looked like a standard tumbler lock, but actually used a secret combination of turns and push/pull on the key itself would in fact be a lock using obfuscation for security. Ideally, only the proper key, used in the proper way would unlock it. In this way you have obfuscated the locking mechanism, and an essential part to this is not letting anyone see inside the lock. Which brings us back to the application of that term to computer science. If I can see your software, and make the effort to understand it fully, any security through obfuscation will be defeated. While if you use strong encryption, even though I can see you doing it, I can't defeat it. Get it?
Which is why it would be interesting to know what the local AD and AG have to say about this.
Oh... yeah I should have figured that out. In any case, that's ok. We don't really want the fed getting any more involved in public schools. This should be handled at the local level. The only time I want to see the fed getting involved is if this kind of thing happens across multiple states.
Are you implying that a citizen of Canada, or Mexico, or Panama might correctly call themselves "american"? I suppose technically speaking this would be correct, however, the meanings we give to words are as much a result of intent, as of usage. "american" has long been understood to mean a citizen of the United States of America.
That being said, I kinda like USAian. Maybe just USian?
I'm pretty sure that it is in fact illegal to take pictures IN A PRIVATE RESIDENCE without the express permission of the owner. Consider that if it is not illegal, why do cops need a warrant to do such things?
It really doesn't set a precedent of any kind. First off, there may still be local criminal filings, and almost certainly a civil suit. If I had kids in that school, you can fucking well bet I'd be talking to a lawyer. I'd be suing for anything and everything, and I'd also be lobbying the school board, and or local parents to replace the entire school board, and then replace the entire administration and staff that were privy to this.
Intent or not, this was a serious breach of privacy. It's also potentially a violation of any number of anti-spying laws. Is it actually legal for a school to install a video camera in my home? If it is, maybe it's time to change the law. If it isn't, why aren't these people being put before a judge? This entire thing reeks. School administrations have gotten just a little out of control lately, and it's about time we smack them back into line. Since we aren't supposed to take someone out behind the gym and beat sense into them anymore, that leaves the political, or legal avenues. The Fed declining to prosecute doesn't constitute an end to the legal front.
Some truth hidings result in people dying and it being covered up. Just saying, that goes both ways. You can have your "top secret" truths, when I can have accountability and oversight. Wanna trade? OH, why not?
well... there was that one video.... The one where a helicopter crew murdered a bunch of journalists and civilians. (and maybe one guy with a gun).
Don't get me wrong, the simple answer to that situation is don't hang around an active war zone, and you won't get gunned down by 20mm rounds. However, that only goes so far towards "free fire zone".
Also, you are welcome to shit yourself where you so please. Freedom is just grand isn't it?
The word aggression... you keep using it, are you sure you know what it means?
... oh I don't know... starting killing people? You know laughably little about international politics. A flag member of the EU, and a sovereign nation in good standing with the UN and USA is not subject to any such thing for anything short of an act of war. Leaking classified documents is messy, but it's not an act of war.
Are you saying that IF "Sweden" publishes classified US documents, that it would be "ok" for the USA to