It's *Philips* NOT Phillips, the poster got it right, but almost without exception everyone else is using the superfluous 'l' in the name...
The really funny thing is, I got it right here (probably because I cut-and-pasted:-P) but I misspelled it in another message thread. One of those ones that doesn't hit you until after you hit the 'submit' button.
Somebody fix the moderation on trix_e in metamod - that post didn't deserve to be marked 'troll'.
(From the parent post): Unfortuneatly according to the article, Philip's patent runs out in 2002/3 (hitting that 20yr mark).
(From the article): They break the CD-DA standard and therefore are not allowed to use the logo. (emphasis mine)
I'm not an IP lawyer (IANAIL..?), but I'm guessing that if the logo is *trademarked* by Phillips, then they will still get to decide who can put the logo on their disc regardless of whether or not they continue to maintain exclusive rights to the patent.
My girlfriend used to work in the advertising department of a reasonably big website.
They went out of their way to make their advertising and their news blend together to the point that it was tough to tell one from the other. Little advertising snippets complete with links would be written up as though they were headlines on the news page. When you clicked on the links, you either went through to the manufacturer, or you went to some rah-rah fluff an internal copy writer had sketched up.
I was originally going to mention the site she worked at, but by the end of this post, I thought better. Never makes sense to burn any bridges...
:-)
Here's a site devoted to getting mobile music out of your notebook.
He recommends the "EMU8710" and the "WaMi Box". A quick net search shows 'em both running about $400 - a little more reasonable than the $700 quoted above.
One. ONE decent memorable character. ONE good storyline that wasn't licensed from a book. (Notice where the REALLY good movies come from?) ONE skillful use of setting, or non-canned music, or silence, or symbolism, or metaphor.
You didn't like American Beauty? That had (IMO) pretty memorable characters (I love the scene where Kevin Spacey hurls the plate at the wall), a good storyline that most everyone can relate to, great symbolism and metaphor (remember the scene with girl laying in the rosebed, or the dancing trashbag..?)
Probably some good music, too.
:-)
And most amazing of all, the movie actually got *made* and people liked it.
Guess you don't follow the research community much do you.
Prior to this crazy thing called the "World Wide Web", you had to cough up some serious tuition money if you wanted to follow the research community.
I come here now to get my scoop on new inventions, but Dvorak still keeps his ear to the ground on some stuff that the editors here either aren't privy to or just aren't interested in (article I submitted here and got rejected...)
Anyways I still remember an SNL skit of a toy manufacturer with "Bag `O Broken Glass" and "Play Doctor Medical Waste Goop"....
Yeah, that was a classic skit with Dan Akroyd as the sleazy toy salesman. They re-hashed the character later when he came back selling Halloween costumes. "Johnny Human Torch" (bag of oily rags) had to be my favorite.
Wonder if an informed reply will [get] a better score?
Empirical evidence suggests that an uninformed but emotional response will typically fare better than a calm, informed response. Assuming, of course, the emotions are directed at the correct parties..
;-P
See, it's all relative. No big deal. And did Sid actually SAY he was OPPOSED to adult entertainment?
And, just for the record, I rank smut up there with the lightbulb for all-time greatest inventions. In fact, I think I would actually put it *above* the lightbulb. I can learn to read my Penthouse by candlelight, if needs be.
Ah, Christian moralising from somebody calling themselves Sid Vicious. Only available on slashdot!:-)
Heh.. now, now, I'm quite grateful for the wonderful morally-impaired people folks who bring me my daily smut.
It's funny, when I picked my handle I thought "eh, it's okay, but I don't wanna keep it forever - I'll just edit it sometime down the road". Next thing I know, I've got 50 karma, there's no edit button to change my handle, and everyone wants to know why I killed Nancy.
:-)
If all the "virtual celebrities" are look-alike Britney Speares clones (complete with "virtual boob jobs"), I don't think it'll really catch on. Add some variety, some depth, some creativity, and you may have something.
That was what I thought was so great about the characters from Final Fantasy. The artists went to great lengths to build in some believable physical flaws (skin blemishes, etc.). And the female lead was cute, but she wasn't a Playboy bunny -- you could reasonable see her as the girl next door.
Does the porn industry already have established digital characters like this?
That's a good question - they really have led the way in technology, but I think that's always been more along the lines of distribution media (8mm, VHS cassettes, CD-ROMs, Internet).
It currently costs so much money to develop a CG character (vs. paying some morally-impaired folks a few hundred bucks) that I don't see it happening any time real soon.
OTOH, I'll bet there's a point down the road where the technology has matured and it actually does become feasible to crank out virtual smut.
I plopped down my cash to see the Final Fantasy movie in the theatre..
I think the problem is really that the technology needs to mature. I'm a complete geek, so I was able to stay "wow'ed" for an hour and 45 minutes.
But for most folks, the "wow" wears off rather quickly, and then you're stuck with this really bizarre storyline.
Point is, I don't think all-CG movies will work unless the technology matures to the point that it's commonplace. Then, all-CG can simply be a convenient vehicle for a good movie rather than the point of the movie itself.
They have the potential ability to decrypt the information if they already have the access.
Sure, and you don't think that the information we're talking about can be snagged during battle? Guess the Germans didn't either when Turing cracked their Enigma machine.
But that's not the point...
Granted, the Triple DES example is a little bit hokey (I *highly* doubt that troop movements are transmitted over the Internet -- if they are, I'm moving to Canada, I hear they've got a tank now --and I have no idea whether they use Triple DES), but that wasn't the point. I was simply trying to manufacture a simple (albeit admittedly bogus) example to raise the question of whether security research should ever take a backseat to public safety.
The DMCA doesn't outlaw the trafficking of a security circumvention device. Only tools which circumvent access to a *copyrighted work*. I agree that it's a bad law, but we should be careful about what it actually covers.
Good point, you're right - thanks for catching that.
You don't think that would be considered trafficking in a security circumvention device?
... if someone did find a way to crack it, its millions of users would definitely like to know! Al Qaeda or no Al Qaeda.
Absolutely, I agree that millions of people would want to know. And they should know, but perhaps the research should be classified by law for a reasonable period of time after the discovery, to allow time for a new encryption method to be deployed.
Imagine for a moment that I post the magical Triple-DES crack on the Internet. Wham, bad guys now have access to everything from credit card numbers to troop movements. If we had time to deploy a new encryption scheme, we could minimize the damage that was done.
Now, granted, this won't stop everyone (e.g., foreign citizens) from publishing their research. And any reasonable U.S. citizen probably *would* turn their research into the government before publishing something like this. This would just be a way to keep honest people honest.
I don't think that anyone on this site would argue for an instant that current law has had a chilling effect on researchers such as yourself. The government has forbidden legitimate research into security circumvention tools, essentially sticking its head in the sand and pretending that crackers and citizens of foreign countries won't continue security research themselves.
That having been said, the events of September 11th really came as a shock to the system for a lot us here. Suddenly, the idea of someone, say, cracking Triple-DES and distributing the crack on the Internet seemed a little more scary than it did on September 10th. If someone (*cough*Al Queda*cough*) were able to read our military secrets, you can bet there would be a real loss of human life associated with it.
Obviously, discussing flaws in SDMI and publishing a Triple-DES crack are two different balls of wax. So, the real question - do you think anti-circumvention legislation is *ever* warranted? Or is any legislation at *all* simply more sticking our heads in the sand?
From the article:
"The guys at Google thought, 'How cool that we can offer this to our users' without thinking about security. If you want to do this right, you have to think about security from the beginning and have a very solid approach to software design and software development that is based on what bad guys might possibly do to cause your program grief."
Search and replace "Google" with "Microsoft". The lack of security is in the operating system and the applications which launch the malicious files without warning the user. Google just tell you where to get 'em, not what to do with 'em.
Slashdot Mirror
It's *Philips* NOT Phillips, the poster got it right, but almost without exception everyone else is using the superfluous 'l' in the name...
:-P) but I misspelled it in another message thread. One of those ones that doesn't hit you until after you hit the 'submit' button.
The really funny thing is, I got it right here (probably because I cut-and-pasted
Somebody fix the moderation on trix_e in metamod - that post didn't deserve to be marked 'troll'.
(From the parent post): Unfortuneatly according to the article, Philip's patent runs out in 2002/3 (hitting that 20yr mark).
(From the article): They break the CD-DA standard and therefore are not allowed to use the logo. (emphasis mine)
I'm not an IP lawyer (IANAIL..?), but I'm guessing that if the logo is *trademarked* by Phillips, then they will still get to decide who can put the logo on their disc regardless of whether or not they continue to maintain exclusive rights to the patent.
As a conclusion, Philips' next audio CD copier will be able to detect and probably circumvent the copy protection of audio CDs.
"I've got to admit, it's getting better... it's getting better all the time..."
:-)
what about javadoc
Well, javadoc works great.... if your code is written in Java!
:-P
My girlfriend used to work in the advertising department of a reasonably big website.
They went out of their way to make their advertising and their news blend together to the point that it was tough to tell one from the other. Little advertising snippets complete with links would be written up as though they were headlines on the news page. When you clicked on the links, you either went through to the manufacturer, or you went to some rah-rah fluff an internal copy writer had sketched up.
I was originally going to mention the site she worked at, but by the end of this post, I thought better. Never makes sense to burn any bridges...
:-)
Here's a site devoted to getting mobile music out of your notebook.
He recommends the "EMU8710" and the "WaMi Box". A quick net search shows 'em both running about $400 - a little more reasonable than the $700 quoted above.
One. ONE decent memorable character. ONE good storyline that wasn't licensed from a book. (Notice where the REALLY good movies come from?) ONE skillful use of setting, or non-canned music, or silence, or symbolism, or metaphor.
You didn't like American Beauty? That had (IMO) pretty memorable characters (I love the scene where Kevin Spacey hurls the plate at the wall), a good storyline that most everyone can relate to, great symbolism and metaphor (remember the scene with girl laying in the rosebed, or the dancing trashbag..?)
Probably some good music, too.
:-)
And most amazing of all, the movie actually got *made* and people liked it.
Guess you don't follow the research community much do you.
Prior to this crazy thing called the "World Wide Web", you had to cough up some serious tuition money if you wanted to follow the research community.
I come here now to get my scoop on new inventions, but Dvorak still keeps his ear to the ground on some stuff that the editors here either aren't privy to or just aren't interested in (article I submitted here and got rejected...)
Say what you want about Dvorak, but his 'Inside Track' column was where I first heard about (among other things):
1) Touchpads
2) DVDs
3) GMR Hard Drives
4) Cheap laser LEDs
So, does this mean goodbye to the "Bluescreen of Death" and hello to the "Bluescreen of Holy Vengeance?"
Anyways I still remember an SNL skit of a toy manufacturer with "Bag `O Broken Glass" and "Play Doctor Medical Waste Goop" ....
Yeah, that was a classic skit with Dan Akroyd as the sleazy toy salesman. They re-hashed the character later when he came back selling Halloween costumes. "Johnny Human Torch" (bag of oily rags) had to be my favorite.
:-)
Wonder if an informed reply will [get] a better score?
Empirical evidence suggests that an uninformed but emotional response will typically fare better than a calm, informed response. Assuming, of course, the emotions are directed at the correct parties..
;-P
Eventually someone's going to file a SLAPP suit and make it stick.
Proudly flaunting my ignorance, what's a SLAPP suit?
See, it's all relative. No big deal. And did Sid actually SAY he was OPPOSED to adult entertainment?
And, just for the record, I rank smut up there with the lightbulb for all-time greatest inventions. In fact, I think I would actually put it *above* the lightbulb. I can learn to read my Penthouse by candlelight, if needs be.
Yeah, except that you can have computer generated characters do any twisted thing you want, even if its humanly impossible or illegal.
That's a *very* good point. I wonder if we'll start seeing legislation about stuff like that?
Ah, Christian moralising from somebody calling themselves Sid Vicious. Only available on slashdot! :-)
Heh.. now, now, I'm quite grateful for the wonderful morally-impaired people folks who bring me my daily smut.
It's funny, when I picked my handle I thought "eh, it's okay, but I don't wanna keep it forever - I'll just edit it sometime down the road". Next thing I know, I've got 50 karma, there's no edit button to change my handle, and everyone wants to know why I killed Nancy.
:-)
If all the "virtual celebrities" are look-alike Britney Speares clones (complete with "virtual boob jobs"), I don't think it'll really catch on. Add some variety, some depth, some creativity, and you may have something.
That was what I thought was so great about the characters from Final Fantasy. The artists went to great lengths to build in some believable physical flaws (skin blemishes, etc.). And the female lead was cute, but she wasn't a Playboy bunny -- you could reasonable see her as the girl next door.
Even the men in straight movies were making "a few hundred a day".
Holy crap, I'm in the wrong business.
Does the porn industry already have established digital characters like this?
That's a good question - they really have led the way in technology, but I think that's always been more along the lines of distribution media (8mm, VHS cassettes, CD-ROMs, Internet).
It currently costs so much money to develop a CG character (vs. paying some morally-impaired folks a few hundred bucks) that I don't see it happening any time real soon.
OTOH, I'll bet there's a point down the road where the technology has matured and it actually does become feasible to crank out virtual smut.
I plopped down my cash to see the Final Fantasy movie in the theatre..
I think the problem is really that the technology needs to mature. I'm a complete geek, so I was able to stay "wow'ed" for an hour and 45 minutes.
But for most folks, the "wow" wears off rather quickly, and then you're stuck with this really bizarre storyline.
Point is, I don't think all-CG movies will work unless the technology matures to the point that it's commonplace. Then, all-CG can simply be a convenient vehicle for a good movie rather than the point of the movie itself.
They have the potential ability to decrypt the information if they already have the access.
...
Sure, and you don't think that the information we're talking about can be snagged during battle? Guess the Germans didn't either when Turing cracked their Enigma machine.
But that's not the point
Granted, the Triple DES example is a little bit hokey (I *highly* doubt that troop movements are transmitted over the Internet -- if they are, I'm moving to Canada, I hear they've got a tank now --and I have no idea whether they use Triple DES), but that wasn't the point. I was simply trying to manufacture a simple (albeit admittedly bogus) example to raise the question of whether security research should ever take a backseat to public safety.
The DMCA doesn't outlaw the trafficking of a security circumvention device. Only tools which circumvent access to a *copyrighted work*. I agree that it's a bad law, but we should be careful about what it actually covers.
Good point, you're right - thanks for catching that.
cracking 3DES is perfectly legal
... if someone did find a way to crack it, its millions of users would definitely like to know! Al Qaeda or no Al Qaeda.
You don't think that would be considered trafficking in a security circumvention device?
Absolutely, I agree that millions of people would want to know. And they should know, but perhaps the research should be classified by law for a reasonable period of time after the discovery, to allow time for a new encryption method to be deployed.
Imagine for a moment that I post the magical Triple-DES crack on the Internet. Wham, bad guys now have access to everything from credit card numbers to troop movements. If we had time to deploy a new encryption scheme, we could minimize the damage that was done.
Now, granted, this won't stop everyone (e.g., foreign citizens) from publishing their research. And any reasonable U.S. citizen probably *would* turn their research into the government before publishing something like this. This would just be a way to keep honest people honest.
Dr. Felten,
:-)
I don't think that anyone on this site would argue for an instant that current law has had a chilling effect on researchers such as yourself. The government has forbidden legitimate research into security circumvention tools, essentially sticking its head in the sand and pretending that crackers and citizens of foreign countries won't continue security research themselves.
That having been said, the events of September 11th really came as a shock to the system for a lot us here. Suddenly, the idea of someone, say, cracking Triple-DES and distributing the crack on the Internet seemed a little more scary than it did on September 10th. If someone (*cough*Al Queda*cough*) were able to read our military secrets, you can bet there would be a real loss of human life associated with it.
Obviously, discussing flaws in SDMI and publishing a Triple-DES crack are two different balls of wax. So, the real question - do you think anti-circumvention legislation is *ever* warranted? Or is any legislation at *all* simply more sticking our heads in the sand?
(proudly wearing my DeCSS t-shirt
From the article:
"The guys at Google thought, 'How cool that we can offer this to our users' without thinking about security. If you want to do this right, you have to think about security from the beginning and have a very solid approach to software design and software development that is based on what bad guys might possibly do to cause your program grief."
Search and replace "Google" with "Microsoft". The lack of security is in the operating system and the applications which launch the malicious files without warning the user. Google just tell you where to get 'em, not what to do with 'em.