There's no reason players would have to lose support. Older DVD players were not phased out just because CSS was cracked. What I'm talking about is writing the Blu-Ray specification to require these auto-updates and for the hardware itself to conform to a specification so that the updated firmware will be accepted. Sure, it seems like a daunting task. But that same Windows CD will install on all sorts of different chips because they all adhere to the x86 specification. And we're talking about a much less complex specification.
It's not planned obsolescence in the least. It's planning to avoid the problems associated with the weak DRM system that was in place with DVD. Those problems happen to be counter to most of our (Slashdot's) ideas on what we should be able to do with a DVD we buy, however that doesn't make the technical solution any less elegant or feasible.
Sorry, I either wasn't clear or I'm misinformed on how the PSP updates work.
I was under the impression that the game discs included the minimum version of the firmware that they'd run on--basically, the newest version at the time of the game's pressing is included in the game, and that auto-updates would take place when you first play the game in the PSP. This ensures that no Internet connection is needed to update the firmware while making firmware updates mandatory to play newer games.
A similar setup could be done with any electronic device that accepts external content (for example, DVD players, Blu-Ray, etc) as long as it's well written into the spec. The PSP has an advantage in that all the hardware and firmware is written by Sony, so there aren't problems with slightly off-spec implementations and it should be harder to modify the hardware. While the Blu-Ray consortium could ban poor implementations that were suceptible to hacking, multiple types of hardware still means there's a better chance of hacking, simply because with so many implementations, the chances of a critical bug that results in a compromise are more likely.
Of course, with key revoking, even this is less of a problem. But once the device is compromised, it's compromised. It could be reverse-engineered so that new keys could be added without additional copy-protection features, at which point we're back in the current setup, only with larger disc capacities.
As I mentioned in another post, they could achieve the same end-result by using the PSP tech that requires you to update the firmware to play new games. New rounds of Blu-Ray disc releases could require a firmware update with new protection measures/keys to help combat piracy.
There's no need for that. New discs that come out could have the code on them to update the player, much like the Sony PSP. If you want to play the new disc (and other new discs) you gotta update the firware. If you don't want to update the firmware, you're SOL.
Further, it would be easy enough to have code in there that tried to detect illegal copies and disable the player. They could require that you send the player in to fix it, which would be enough of a deterrant against playing illegal discs to stop most people.
Considering that support for most 802.11g chipsets is nonexistent within Linux, I'd guess that's your problem.
NDIS-wrapper works ok sometimes, but requires the Windows drivers, which could be located anywhere on the c:\ depending on the manufacturer of the computer. There was another non-free driver wrapper around that supported more chipsets, but clearly couldn't be included in a free LiveCD.
Even if you have an Intel chipset, you still have to get the firmware somewhere (I/think/ that's not freely redistributable, even though it's a free download. But I'm not 100% sure on that).
Anyway, the point is that it's tough to support these devices out of the box, which is why no LiveCD that I know of does so.
2. Under *NO* possible scenario do they "have" to open-source their kernel. This is FUD straight from Bill Gates.
In theory, a judge could demand that a given copyright/license violator comply with the licence they broke. In this case, it would be SCO and the GPL. It's highly unlikely, particularly if SCO argued that they would effectively be out of business if they did this, however this scenario could happen.
Multiple search engines are probably the way to go, honestly, but here's some counter-anecdotal evidence.
Search for: super mario world hacks
on each of Yahoo and Google, and check the first hit. Google takes it hands down, with an entire page devoted to SMW hacks, vs. Yahoo's page on SNES hacks.
I routinely try other search engines, and while another one occasionally trumps Google, the big G tends to come out on top overall.
I don't think he wants to "stick it to sony". He wants a PSP--that's why he's buying a second. He just also wants to play homebrews, something I really agree with.
Unfortunately, as many have pointed out, it's not economically feasible for Sony to allow this.
Either from Nintendo, who have been very hands off so far(tons of homebrew GBA stuff and DS stuff is hitting, no sign of them flashing the firmware yet), or from Gizmondo who actually actively SEEKS that niche.
Do we even know if the DS can be flashed with a new firmware? I'm certain that the GBA cannot be.
Flashable firmware can be very nice, but it certainly takes effort to create a device capable of it. If the Nintendo handhelds weren't made to be flashed, that would certainly prevent Nintendo from doing so to lock out homebrewers.
Considering the government will be regulating the development of the technologies, I'd think they could come up with something fairly secure. Or does the US government routinely have their systems compromised?
Of course, now you can just go all conspiracy-nut on me and claim that the systems are probably compromised all the time, but that there's a media blackout on any such stories.
Random users might not know the site number, but that information does get out. People tend not to be as careful with it as a password because they don't think it's that important. Who cares if the Wal-Mart in your area is store #2108? No one. Hell, some big chain stores have the store number printed on their receipts. And that's not even considering the fact that a number is easier to brute-force than a strong password, and it's a well-known tactic. One retailer I used to work for used the store number for everything, from the break room lock to the inventory management system passcode (which was not user-based, just password protected).
Like I said, I think the plan overall is a bad idea. I just think that it can be implemented securely. Also, the backdoor would never have to be known to the end-user. Presumably the hardware manufacturer would be in control of creating the backdoors, and to prevent tampering, their customer should never know how to access it. As such, making it the "site number" makes even less sense. No one at the customer's end should know what the password is--only the manufacturer (for example, Cisco) and the government.
I'm sure the implementation would be a little more secure than requiring the username/password "fbi/fbi" to grant full access on the box. More likely, companies would be required to have a login/secure password (if not some sort of public key encryption) access on the boxes, preferably through firmware. Each manufacturer would have a different password/key. Possibly each unique model would have a different password/key. Any time a leak occurred or someone discovered the backdoor, a new firmware could be issued as a "security fix", which would revoke the old method of access and create a new one. Thus breakins would be limited to companies (Cisco) or specific devices (2950t line). Any time a breakin does occur, a firmware patch would be all that is required to seal the breach.
Additional security could be implemented to prevent the entire Intarweb from being owned by a single leak. For example, there is no good reason that the FBI should have write-access on these devices. That in-and-of-itself should be enough to prevent worms from spreading. Also, certain key files should be unreadable, such as password lists, in order to prevent the spread of worms.
Now, all that said, I do not think this is a good idea. Nevertheless, backdoors can be created securely.
It makes sense for evangelists to want to stave off the end for as long as possible, in order to save every soul they can. Yes, it is inevitable, however that doesn't mean there isn't work to be done before the end.
It's not showing a credit card that's the issue... it's simply having one.
Many prospective employers include a credit check as part of the hiring process. The idea is that a stable credit history implies that its owner will be a stable person, more responsible, and less likely to rob the company due to a high financial burden.
It's very difficult to build up credit without a credit card. As such, while most companies don't require a credit card per se, some of them effectively require it by mandating good credit to work for them.
Then there are also companies that require that you pay for your own travel, etc. even when it's on company time. These usually require a credit card with at least an X limit, even if they will later reimburse you.
Graphics cards aren't really measured in frames per second. Consider the highest end graphics card you can get today, and try to run Doom3 max settings. I bet you won't be getting that 300FPS now, will you?
I picked up an ad for the 360 from a local store (Hastings). The ad promoted the system's backwards compatibility with older, Xbox games. If only a handful of games are actually backwards compatible, that's verging on false advertising.
Of course, it's only Microsoft's "fault" if they actually advertise it as such or suggest that retailers do.
Anyway, I'd even be happy with 90% compatibility, but if the blurb is even halfway correct (and who the hell knows these days) then claiming that the device is backwards compatible is pretty much a lie.
Censorship does not have to come from the government. It can come from anybody. A corporation can censor its employees--I, for example, am forbidden from making any comment about the inner workings of my employer to any news agency, lest I lose my job. That is censorship.
It's nit-picking, but it's an important word and it's important to know that not only the government can censor. Google, however, is only censoring its own employees against talking to C|Net. They are not censoring C|Net itself, who is still free to do any news store on Google that they like, within the scope of the law.
Fair enough, but the point stands. Early 360s will be crippled in comparison to later ones (probably). I suppose it's possible that they could choose not to upgrade the line, but if that's the case, making the statement you quoted seems to only harm the product line. If Bill had remained silent, there would be no expectations of a better product in the future. As it is, some people are considering waiting on their 360 purchase until they get the improved DVD player, regardless of whether that's HD or Blu-Ray.
The point is, Microsoft recently announced that future 360s will have HD-DVD. That's telling their entire customerbase that early-adopters are actually going to be penalized. That's like a big fat sticker on a DVD case saying, "Coming in a few months, the super-spiffy edition with tons of extra content!" Who's going to buy that DVD when they know ahead of time that a better version will be released?
If I don't need the money now for a specific purpose, you better believe it's worth it to me. Of course, most of my selling experience on eBay has been good. Being up front about shipping definitely helps, but usually I have my money (in Paypal) within a day of the auction's end.
As for setting up the auction, I think an hour is overestimating. Snap a couple of pics on the digital camera, put the item description and any appropriate web-links, and you're done. Even without the pro tools, I can finish a single auction in 15 minutes or so.
The problem is, I just don't trust Paypal anymore. I've never been burned, but I've heard way too many horror stories. So for any high-dollar item (anything I'm expecting to get more than about $75 for) I refuse to use it, and in those cases, yes, it will take a week maybe to get the check. Again, though, unless I really need the money, I can wait for the extra $20 or so.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no reason players would have to lose support. Older DVD players were not phased out just because CSS was cracked. What I'm talking about is writing the Blu-Ray specification to require these auto-updates and for the hardware itself to conform to a specification so that the updated firmware will be accepted. Sure, it seems like a daunting task. But that same Windows CD will install on all sorts of different chips because they all adhere to the x86 specification. And we're talking about a much less complex specification.
It's not planned obsolescence in the least. It's planning to avoid the problems associated with the weak DRM system that was in place with DVD. Those problems happen to be counter to most of our (Slashdot's) ideas on what we should be able to do with a DVD we buy, however that doesn't make the technical solution any less elegant or feasible.
Sorry, I either wasn't clear or I'm misinformed on how the PSP updates work.
I was under the impression that the game discs included the minimum version of the firmware that they'd run on--basically, the newest version at the time of the game's pressing is included in the game, and that auto-updates would take place when you first play the game in the PSP. This ensures that no Internet connection is needed to update the firmware while making firmware updates mandatory to play newer games.
A similar setup could be done with any electronic device that accepts external content (for example, DVD players, Blu-Ray, etc) as long as it's well written into the spec. The PSP has an advantage in that all the hardware and firmware is written by Sony, so there aren't problems with slightly off-spec implementations and it should be harder to modify the hardware. While the Blu-Ray consortium could ban poor implementations that were suceptible to hacking, multiple types of hardware still means there's a better chance of hacking, simply because with so many implementations, the chances of a critical bug that results in a compromise are more likely.
Of course, with key revoking, even this is less of a problem. But once the device is compromised, it's compromised. It could be reverse-engineered so that new keys could be added without additional copy-protection features, at which point we're back in the current setup, only with larger disc capacities.
As I mentioned in another post, they could achieve the same end-result by using the PSP tech that requires you to update the firmware to play new games. New rounds of Blu-Ray disc releases could require a firmware update with new protection measures/keys to help combat piracy.
There's no need for that. New discs that come out could have the code on them to update the player, much like the Sony PSP. If you want to play the new disc (and other new discs) you gotta update the firware. If you don't want to update the firmware, you're SOL.
Further, it would be easy enough to have code in there that tried to detect illegal copies and disable the player. They could require that you send the player in to fix it, which would be enough of a deterrant against playing illegal discs to stop most people.
Considering that support for most 802.11g chipsets is nonexistent within Linux, I'd guess that's your problem.
/think/ that's not freely redistributable, even though it's a free download. But I'm not 100% sure on that).
NDIS-wrapper works ok sometimes, but requires the Windows drivers, which could be located anywhere on the c:\ depending on the manufacturer of the computer. There was another non-free driver wrapper around that supported more chipsets, but clearly couldn't be included in a free LiveCD.
Even if you have an Intel chipset, you still have to get the firmware somewhere (I
Anyway, the point is that it's tough to support these devices out of the box, which is why no LiveCD that I know of does so.
2. Under *NO* possible scenario do they "have" to open-source their kernel. This is FUD straight from Bill Gates.
In theory, a judge could demand that a given copyright/license violator comply with the licence they broke. In this case, it would be SCO and the GPL. It's highly unlikely, particularly if SCO argued that they would effectively be out of business if they did this, however this scenario could happen.
And the FCC would probably prevent it for this very reason. Same reason you couldn't get Network channels by DSS for the longest time.
Multiple search engines are probably the way to go, honestly, but here's some counter-anecdotal evidence.
Search for:
super mario world hacks
on each of Yahoo and Google, and check the first hit. Google takes it hands down, with an entire page devoted to SMW hacks, vs. Yahoo's page on SNES hacks.
I routinely try other search engines, and while another one occasionally trumps Google, the big G tends to come out on top overall.
I don't think he wants to "stick it to sony". He wants a PSP--that's why he's buying a second. He just also wants to play homebrews, something I really agree with.
Unfortunately, as many have pointed out, it's not economically feasible for Sony to allow this.
Either from Nintendo, who have been very hands off so far(tons of homebrew GBA stuff and DS stuff is hitting, no sign of them flashing the firmware yet), or from Gizmondo who actually actively SEEKS that niche.
Do we even know if the DS can be flashed with a new firmware? I'm certain that the GBA cannot be.
Flashable firmware can be very nice, but it certainly takes effort to create a device capable of it. If the Nintendo handhelds weren't made to be flashed, that would certainly prevent Nintendo from doing so to lock out homebrewers.
I'd love to take those looks. Why don't you point me out some places to start?
Considering the government will be regulating the development of the technologies, I'd think they could come up with something fairly secure. Or does the US government routinely have their systems compromised?
Of course, now you can just go all conspiracy-nut on me and claim that the systems are probably compromised all the time, but that there's a media blackout on any such stories.
Random users might not know the site number, but that information does get out. People tend not to be as careful with it as a password because they don't think it's that important. Who cares if the Wal-Mart in your area is store #2108? No one. Hell, some big chain stores have the store number printed on their receipts. And that's not even considering the fact that a number is easier to brute-force than a strong password, and it's a well-known tactic. One retailer I used to work for used the store number for everything, from the break room lock to the inventory management system passcode (which was not user-based, just password protected).
Like I said, I think the plan overall is a bad idea. I just think that it can be implemented securely. Also, the backdoor would never have to be known to the end-user. Presumably the hardware manufacturer would be in control of creating the backdoors, and to prevent tampering, their customer should never know how to access it. As such, making it the "site number" makes even less sense. No one at the customer's end should know what the password is--only the manufacturer (for example, Cisco) and the government.
As long as they don't change it to 1-2-3-4-5.
(Obligatory reference any time passwords are mentioned on Slashdot)
I'm sure the implementation would be a little more secure than requiring the username/password "fbi/fbi" to grant full access on the box. More likely, companies would be required to have a login/secure password (if not some sort of public key encryption) access on the boxes, preferably through firmware. Each manufacturer would have a different password/key. Possibly each unique model would have a different password/key. Any time a leak occurred or someone discovered the backdoor, a new firmware could be issued as a "security fix", which would revoke the old method of access and create a new one. Thus breakins would be limited to companies (Cisco) or specific devices (2950t line). Any time a breakin does occur, a firmware patch would be all that is required to seal the breach.
Additional security could be implemented to prevent the entire Intarweb from being owned by a single leak. For example, there is no good reason that the FBI should have write-access on these devices. That in-and-of-itself should be enough to prevent worms from spreading. Also, certain key files should be unreadable, such as password lists, in order to prevent the spread of worms.
Now, all that said, I do not think this is a good idea. Nevertheless, backdoors can be created securely.
You want to be remotely controlled?
It makes sense for evangelists to want to stave off the end for as long as possible, in order to save every soul they can. Yes, it is inevitable, however that doesn't mean there isn't work to be done before the end.
It's not showing a credit card that's the issue... it's simply having one.
Many prospective employers include a credit check as part of the hiring process. The idea is that a stable credit history implies that its owner will be a stable person, more responsible, and less likely to rob the company due to a high financial burden.
It's very difficult to build up credit without a credit card. As such, while most companies don't require a credit card per se, some of them effectively require it by mandating good credit to work for them.
Then there are also companies that require that you pay for your own travel, etc. even when it's on company time. These usually require a credit card with at least an X limit, even if they will later reimburse you.
Graphics cards aren't really measured in frames per second. Consider the highest end graphics card you can get today, and try to run Doom3 max settings. I bet you won't be getting that 300FPS now, will you?
It's a fair bash.
I picked up an ad for the 360 from a local store (Hastings). The ad promoted the system's backwards compatibility with older, Xbox games. If only a handful of games are actually backwards compatible, that's verging on false advertising.
Of course, it's only Microsoft's "fault" if they actually advertise it as such or suggest that retailers do.
Anyway, I'd even be happy with 90% compatibility, but if the blurb is even halfway correct (and who the hell knows these days) then claiming that the device is backwards compatible is pretty much a lie.
Censorship does not have to come from the government. It can come from anybody. A corporation can censor its employees--I, for example, am forbidden from making any comment about the inner workings of my employer to any news agency, lest I lose my job. That is censorship.
It's nit-picking, but it's an important word and it's important to know that not only the government can censor. Google, however, is only censoring its own employees against talking to C|Net. They are not censoring C|Net itself, who is still free to do any news store on Google that they like, within the scope of the law.
Fair enough, but the point stands. Early 360s will be crippled in comparison to later ones (probably). I suppose it's possible that they could choose not to upgrade the line, but if that's the case, making the statement you quoted seems to only harm the product line. If Bill had remained silent, there would be no expectations of a better product in the future. As it is, some people are considering waiting on their 360 purchase until they get the improved DVD player, regardless of whether that's HD or Blu-Ray.
I believe the Lord of the Rings promised different sets of features on each set. Was that not the case?
And I'd be a little surprised if there was an add-on drive, but who knows. I guess it could happen.
The point is, Microsoft recently announced that future 360s will have HD-DVD. That's telling their entire customerbase that early-adopters are actually going to be penalized. That's like a big fat sticker on a DVD case saying, "Coming in a few months, the super-spiffy edition with tons of extra content!" Who's going to buy that DVD when they know ahead of time that a better version will be released?
If I don't need the money now for a specific purpose, you better believe it's worth it to me. Of course, most of my selling experience on eBay has been good. Being up front about shipping definitely helps, but usually I have my money (in Paypal) within a day of the auction's end.
As for setting up the auction, I think an hour is overestimating. Snap a couple of pics on the digital camera, put the item description and any appropriate web-links, and you're done. Even without the pro tools, I can finish a single auction in 15 minutes or so.
The problem is, I just don't trust Paypal anymore. I've never been burned, but I've heard way too many horror stories. So for any high-dollar item (anything I'm expecting to get more than about $75 for) I refuse to use it, and in those cases, yes, it will take a week maybe to get the check. Again, though, unless I really need the money, I can wait for the extra $20 or so.
It probably pushes less against the air itself and more.. well, it just adheres to Newton's Laws of Motion.
c ketpriciples.htm
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blro