> You cant emulate the 'feel' of having the real thing in your hands.
More or less you can.
Three years ago or so, I built a device described in a joystick driver for linux that plugs into the parallel port, and on the other end of that cable is a box with 4 NES plugs, 2 SNES plugs, 4 9-pin DIN for sega (MS and G), and two connectors I dont recal the name of for the TG-16 pads.
They were aligned in the box in rows for players 1-4. You plug one controller of any type in for each player, and load the driver (it autodetected which controller was there only on load at the time) and they show up as standard joysticks.
I know the drivers now support PSX, N64, and Dreamcast controllers as well.
I'm sure I also ran accrost a driver for windows to do the same (Never checked it out though)
> Probably the same motivation as the guy that looked at a cow and said > "I'll drink what ever comes out of these things."
Not quite off the wall enough to compare.
After all, seeing a baby calf drink from there, atleast one can assume its -possibly- drinkable.
Similar to the joke about smoking... One generally puts leaves on a fire as they burn well... You can't help but breath some smoke in. After feeling those effects one may try to find a more effecnt method such as grinding some leaves up, wrapping it in another leave, and lighting the end on fire.
No, this is more like the first guy that said "I have a cut on my arm and it hurts. I think i'll take a part of this tree, grind it up, and apply it directly to my blood stream!" and discovered the properties of herbal healing.
Finally, to remove any grey areas, a proper name is given to something so others can reference it. That is exactly how its being used here. It's not even being used to reference some other item that nintendo may not want it to be linked with.
All sources show the email was sent by a bot, simply because it was sent to the name/email address in whois and not the one listed on their website... As a matter of fact, I dont see the spooky@ address listed on their help page at all.
Legally speaking, until they have it sent in writting (which may simply be in progress) they don't have to respond at all. Technically they don't even have to then, atleast until the snail mail from a court, telling them to be in court, arrives:P But thats not usually a good idea in most cases.
Unfortunatly it's not really illegal to send a letter like this. At least not yet, as there isnt a law suit. Only once there is a lawsuit can one claim its frivilous.
> I issued a chargeback request with PayPal, who then said it would take 60 days to 'investigate.'
First, I must appologize for not reading past this line.
But to point out what i was saying, paypal is NOT a credit card. If you would have used your credit card, you dont even have to talk to paypal, you tell your credit card company the charge was fradulant and they issue the charge back, and you would have your money with no problems.
If *you* use paypal as the buyer (as well as the vender using them as the seller) this type of thing can and will happen. If you use a credit card merchant however, and the vender uses paypal (or anything else for that matter), you will have the control.
I was very specific in my wording on the first post about that. You did not use a credit card with your merchant, so you effectlvly handed over cash. That is bad. Never do that.
> I have no doubt that it is advantageous to you as a vendor, but I utterly fail > to see the advantage to me as a buyer
I guess the main problem is, when set up correctly, you do not need a paypal account as a buyer to do business with someone using paypal on the vendor side.
So the advantage to you is that you refuse to do business with the vendor unless they accept your credit card, and paypal allows them to accept your credit card.
Additionally, all the disadvantages you claim are bogus.
> With credit cards the burden of proof is on the vendor. With PayPal the burden > of proof is on the purchaser.
Seeing as you as the buyer are using your -credit card- in both situations, there is no difference what so ever.
You can have your credit card company issue a charge back aginst ANYONE you use your credit card with, the actual merchant being used, visa or mastercard directly, one of the millions of other merchants/banks, or paypal. That doesnt matter, because your credit card company simply sees a purchase, and can void that purchase just the same.
Being no different than with a credit card (because thats exactly what you are using to make the purchase) i fail to see how you think the burden is now on the purchaser...
Geeks living in that area should consider advertising their services. Improving computer security and making money while doing it sounds like win-win situation to me.
While it's definatly a good idea, just one more tidbit of advice (some would say is obvious from the article itself): Besure to have some form of legalish document stating in one form or another that those services you sold are to improve security and not provide it outright.
It would suck to do something to help protect aginst the casual wardriver, yet later if/when they are ever *targeted* for an attack (which these protections won't protect aginst very well) to get sued.
While I hate making general statements such as 'rich people love to sue' or 'rich people always try to blame others for their faults', the article clearly shows how they are pointing the finger/blame elsewhere.
Simply, non-computer people do not and should not be expected to understand the details of computers. If they can't even read the manual to do things expected at the consumer level, they definatly arnt going to understand the details expected to be known at the technical level.
Don't open yourself up to that risk. Explain fully exactly what your providing, and what you arn't, and have the avility to prove you explaned that (via legal documents or a simple worded/explained paper) just incase.
You don't own music you buy. You don't own software that you buy. If you owned all of the music you bought, you could resell it as your own. You can't do that, and you shouldn't be able to do that.
I know your just trolling, but still...
Actually as far as laws go, both are by default allowed (as is anything, default allow, law disallows) Only copyright laws say you cant distribute something without the copyright holders permission.
Copyright law (nor any other laws) say you can't do [verb that is not 'distribute']
Also copyright law specifically states that after the copyright term expires, the law doesnt apply, and thus you DO own that music or work at that time, and can do anything you please, including resell it as your own. This is the meaning of public domain.
There is no reason to honor non-expiring copyright, as im not getting anything in return for my loss. Copyright was set up in this country atleast to assure you get something in return for your (temporary) loss.
As copyright does not put the burden of assuring the work survives until the copyright term expires, it clearly is up to the persons desiring to have a copy once the term expires to keep it in existance. This is why obtaining a copyrighted work is legal, only distributing it is not, and thusly why only uploaders are sued and downloaders have not had a suit held aginst them in a court of law.
It is obvious that one cannot perform the legal act of obtaining a work without the other half of that which is usually illegal (the giving part) but this isnt always the case and so cant be automatically assumed.
For those people that incorrectly assume they are entitled to more than copyright was intended for, and should be able to dictate what happens with their work after it would have expired from a copyright term, they have no moral room to complain when their entire copyright term is ignored from start to end. They are just being greedy and taking away from the betterment of mankind in doing so. Screw them. Those people are the true leeches.
Hate to tell you, but you dont make hardware compatable with software... its the other way around... Software has to be made compatable with hardware.
All of MS, apple, and linux, are perfectly capable this very moment to have their OS compiled for any CPU type and hardware their respective makers would want.
The fact they do not do this is NOT the hardware makers problem!
Don't blame hardware makers that MS *CHOOSES* not to cross compile, or that Apple *CHOOSES* not to cross compile, their software! And especially dont blame anyone but yourself about Linux, since you can go cross compile it yourself if you so desired, and your lack of doing so is your own fault.
x86 hardware did not get popular BECAUSE it has the most software for it, it got popular because it was CHEAPEST, and it only has the most software for it because it was popular due to being cheap.
Take all software away this second and hardware can still be used. Take the hardware away and there isnt much us non chip-fabing people can do with the software now is there...
Which is fairly irrelevant, since what you get at the end of the chain is the very same result anti-DRM people are said to loathe: they are not in full control of the computer they own. If I try to install (either pirate or legit) Windows on a machine I bought from you and it gives me a 'no go', be sure I'll carefully consider the alternatives before doing business with your company again.
So by this logic, you blame apple because MS doesn't make windows run on macs, and you blame sun because MS doesn't make windows run on Sparcs?
Oh no, MS doesn't add features to Windows so blame the hardware companys! Better throw away your toaster too, as I suspect MS isnt going to fix windows to boot on it as well. Fear the lack of control over your own purchased toaster!
I know your just a troll, but sheesh, try and atleast make Some sense.
Even worse than that, any works of art I create myself and willingly/freely share and of course encourage others to do so, others can be arrested for doing just that.
This law takes the choice away from the artist fully and makes it a crime to not sell any copyrighted work you create.
I really hope they Very narrowly define p2p here as so its useless...
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the difference is that sourceforge won't host a closed-source product.
Depends if you mean sourceforge the site, or sourceforge the software.
The site (sourceforge.net), will not host closed source.
The software (which sourceforge the site runs) is GPL and can be installed on your own server to do anything you would like it to do. It can be found at http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/alexandria
[snip]I have a feeling this is going to be used more as one of those charges they use when they need an excuse to do a raid, and dont have enough evidence for what they're going for. Disagree? Lemme hear it.
As this item only applys to a felony charge related to the false info, chances are if they suspect you commited a felony they will raid you and do whatever anyways.
Well i can certainly see some overzealous DA go on a fishing filing these charges against you while all the other stuff is being cleared up (because they throw in the kitchen sink to see what will stick) and you may get nailed on this alone, as its the only "real" charge left over from the fishing expedition.
But if no felony charges stick, then this 'charge' won't matter.
this does not directly outlaw it, instead extending the penalty by seven years for felonies performed using such fraudulent websites.
Mainly when you can get an encrypted SSL connection between you and the browser app and you dont trust your upstream (Be it ISP or place of work etc), atleast when you trust the upstream of the app server more so...
Of course yes you still need a browser installed locally:}
Actually the one nice thing about the safe harbor provision for ISPs is that the ISP has the ability to deligate a DMCA contact at their company, and the provision specifically states the notice -must- be delivered to this contact.
The way we handled this at the ISP I used to work at was, on the main webpage, as an image of course, was a message stating all DMCA and copyright notices must be sent to [address here] which was an address at our domain which forwarded directly to our lawyer and not us. We also had to file this address somewhere, I believe the copyright office, but I am not sure on that detail as it was our legal department that handled it.
If a bot is doing whois lookups for an email and it is sent to one of the addresses we get at the NOC, the letter can be legally ignored. If its not sent to the specific address, we have not been notified as per the safe harbor provision and thusly have a legal defense.
In our case, one would have to go to our website to look for contact addresses, and look either on the main page or the contact page to find the right address. Any emails like that sent to us were ignored.
The above URL is the only quote I can find at the moment, but it states:
In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)]
Seeing as we did get a large number of claims of copyright infringement sent to our staff and support addresses, and to my knowledge our legal team never mentioned any, it looks like both bots and stupid people don't look up the correct address at all.
> But the parent is correct in that if the data being accessed on the remote > network only requires a simple password, there would be a substantial weak > point.
The article is about quantum encryption... Has nothing to do with security outside of quantum encryption. Bad passwords cant be fixed with quantum encryption anymore than bad passwords can be fixed with an ethernet cable or a fiber strand.
It's amazing how this technology comes about and says 'we solved this one problem' and everyone bitches that it doesnt solve every last security problem that does or could exist.
The grandparent is totally wrong in that a bad password is a problem with quantum encryption. This doesnt even TRY to address that, so the fact its not fixed is called 'irrelivant', not 'a problem'.
This concept was also used in the AD&D game system under an expansion called 'Spell Jammer'. There was also a book series from TSR (The only spell jammer series) which was based on this same idea.
Its also where I got the idea for my domain (brokensphere.net)
> If you have a million or two dollars worth of IP in your account, with no > backups, then you deserve to lose it.
indeed. I'm not saying this is a ligit situation here. Just something a person could do in a way that the courts would agree with.
If you leave a system unpatched, and someone cracks it and trashes the system, it still falls under computer crime laws no matter how stupid we would argue it is to put an unprotected system on a public network. The courts would even side with an idiot that didn't set a root/admin password and had 'damages' caused by someone simply logging in and viewing files.
In other words, the judge won't blame a stupid person for doing something stupid like not using backups or taking proper security measures (when it comes to computers atleast)
Then again, who's to say i'm not rendering the next LoTR and it gets deleted while in progress or something;}
There will be technical flaws with any argument put forth, but looking at it from a legal point of view, people could very well get away with a claim like this.
I'd gladly admit to one count of copyright voilation and pay my dues if I could at the same time prove he deleted a million or two dollars worth of IP from my account.
Then on top of it, toss in any/all new malware and trojan horse laws at him, add a pinch of whatever they are calling 'cyber terrorism' nowadays, mix, stir, sit back and laugh all the way to the bank.
Worst part for the author about this, his software is 'out there'. It's not something he can easily take back. One could spend a few months cleaning up any piracy connections they have, building/collecting this few million dollars in ligit IP, and install his software knowing what will happen. Its alot harder to prove someone isnt stupid than it is to prove this software author intended for his program to do this.
About the only recourse is posting a warning on his site that whichever version this is is seriously broken and will (read; WILL) cause damage to your system. I'm sure there are even courts that will not look favourably at that, based fully on his intent.
Dude seriously needs some perspective. It may feel good to pump 12 rounds into an unarmed tresspasser, but comon...
Slashdot Mirror
> You cant emulate the 'feel' of having the real thing in your hands.
More or less you can.
Three years ago or so, I built a device described in a joystick driver for linux that plugs into the parallel port, and on the other end of that cable is a box with 4 NES plugs, 2 SNES plugs, 4 9-pin DIN for sega (MS and G), and two connectors I dont recal the name of for the TG-16 pads.
They were aligned in the box in rows for players 1-4.
You plug one controller of any type in for each player, and load the driver (it autodetected which controller was there only on load at the time) and they show up as standard joysticks.
I know the drivers now support PSX, N64, and Dreamcast controllers as well.
I'm sure I also ran accrost a driver for windows to do the same (Never checked it out though)
For more info, see:
Linux joystick driver site
and
TV Game Joystick interfacing docs
> Probably the same motivation as the guy that looked at a cow and said
> "I'll drink what ever comes out of these things."
Not quite off the wall enough to compare.
After all, seeing a baby calf drink from there, atleast one can assume its -possibly- drinkable.
Similar to the joke about smoking... One generally puts leaves on a fire as they burn well... You can't help but breath some smoke in. After feeling those effects one may try to find a more effecnt method such as grinding some leaves up, wrapping it in another leave, and lighting the end on fire.
No, this is more like the first guy that said "I have a cut on my arm and it hurts. I think i'll take a part of this tree, grind it up, and apply it directly to my blood stream!" and discovered the properties of herbal healing.
> Is that legal?
:P But thats not usually a good idea in most cases.
It's more that they have no case.
First, Nintendo does not even have a trademark on 'zelda', although they do have one on 'metroid'
Metroid trademark
Zelda trademark
However, trademarks are protected as part of the law of unfair competition.
Additionally, the Copyright Act now reaches architectural design, software, the graphic arts, motion pictures, and sound recordings.
Note that list does not contain 'Name'.
Finally, to remove any grey areas, a proper name is given to something so others can reference it. That is exactly how its being used here. It's not even being used to reference some other item that nintendo may not want it to be linked with.
All sources show the email was sent by a bot, simply because it was sent to the name/email address in whois and not the one listed on their website... As a matter of fact, I dont see the spooky@ address listed on their help page at all.
Legally speaking, until they have it sent in writting (which may simply be in progress) they don't have to respond at all.
Technically they don't even have to then, atleast until the snail mail from a court, telling them to be in court, arrives
Unfortunatly it's not really illegal to send a letter like this. At least not yet, as there isnt a law suit. Only once there is a lawsuit can one claim its frivilous.
> I issued a chargeback request with PayPal, who then said it would take 60 days to 'investigate.'
First, I must appologize for not reading past this line.
But to point out what i was saying, paypal is NOT a credit card.
If you would have used your credit card, you dont even have to talk to paypal, you tell your credit card company the charge was fradulant and they issue the charge back, and you would have your money with no problems.
If *you* use paypal as the buyer (as well as the vender using them as the seller) this type of thing can and will happen.
If you use a credit card merchant however, and the vender uses paypal (or anything else for that matter), you will have the control.
I was very specific in my wording on the first post about that.
You did not use a credit card with your merchant, so you effectlvly handed over cash. That is bad. Never do that.
> I have no doubt that it is advantageous to you as a vendor, but I utterly fail
> to see the advantage to me as a buyer
I guess the main problem is, when set up correctly, you do not need a paypal account as a buyer to do business with someone using paypal on the vendor side.
So the advantage to you is that you refuse to do business with the vendor unless they accept your credit card, and paypal allows them to accept your credit card.
Additionally, all the disadvantages you claim are bogus.
> With credit cards the burden of proof is on the vendor. With PayPal the burden
> of proof is on the purchaser.
Seeing as you as the buyer are using your -credit card- in both situations, there is no difference what so ever.
You can have your credit card company issue a charge back aginst ANYONE you use your credit card with, the actual merchant being used, visa or mastercard directly, one of the millions of other merchants/banks, or paypal. That doesnt matter, because your credit card company simply sees a purchase, and can void that purchase just the same.
Being no different than with a credit card (because thats exactly what you are using to make the purchase) i fail to see how you think the burden is now on the purchaser...
But it goes to 11! 11 is better!
> Nabbing a CD off an assembly line is no better than downloading the game off the
> internet, it's stealing plain and simple.
While nabbing the CD from an assembly line is indeed stealing, downloading it from the net has nothing at all to do with stealing.
Additionally, stealing the CD is actually worse than downloading it, as only the former causes them to lose something.
Stealing
Copyright
Your clearly a troll, but just to point out the obvious, how do you make the leap from 1000 cells to 10^14 ?
You kill more than 1000 cells when you shower in the morning (And more than 1000 cells when you don't shower as well)
And they key word in all of those definitions is 'take'
By definition, you are making a COPY, making two when there was one.
The one never is removed from whom had it to begin with. Thus, a copy.
This is why copyright was needed, because theft clearly does not apply.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stea ling
y right
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cop
Please stop spreading incorrect information. kTnx
Geeks living in that area should consider advertising their services. Improving computer security and making money while doing it sounds like win-win situation to me.
While it's definatly a good idea, just one more tidbit of advice (some would say is obvious from the article itself):
Besure to have some form of legalish document stating in one form or another that those services you sold are to improve security and not provide it outright.
It would suck to do something to help protect aginst the casual wardriver, yet later if/when they are ever *targeted* for an attack (which these protections won't protect aginst very well) to get sued.
While I hate making general statements such as 'rich people love to sue' or 'rich people always try to blame others for their faults', the article clearly shows how they are pointing the finger/blame elsewhere.
Simply, non-computer people do not and should not be expected to understand the details of computers. If they can't even read the manual to do things expected at the consumer level, they definatly arnt going to understand the details expected to be known at the technical level.
Don't open yourself up to that risk. Explain fully exactly what your providing, and what you arn't, and have the avility to prove you explaned that (via legal documents or a simple worded/explained paper) just incase.
You don't own music you buy. You don't own software that you buy. If you owned all of the music you bought, you could resell it as your own. You can't do that, and you shouldn't be able to do that.
I know your just trolling, but still...
Actually as far as laws go, both are by default allowed (as is anything, default allow, law disallows)
Only copyright laws say you cant distribute something without the copyright holders permission.
Copyright law (nor any other laws) say you can't do [verb that is not 'distribute']
Also copyright law specifically states that after the copyright term expires, the law doesnt apply, and thus you DO own that music or work at that time, and can do anything you please, including resell it as your own. This is the meaning of public domain.
There is no reason to honor non-expiring copyright, as im not getting anything in return for my loss.
Copyright was set up in this country atleast to assure you get something in return for your (temporary) loss.
As copyright does not put the burden of assuring the work survives until the copyright term expires, it clearly is up to the persons desiring to have a copy once the term expires to keep it in existance.
This is why obtaining a copyrighted work is legal, only distributing it is not, and thusly why only uploaders are sued and downloaders have not had a suit held aginst them in a court of law.
It is obvious that one cannot perform the legal act of obtaining a work without the other half of that which is usually illegal (the giving part) but this isnt always the case and so cant be automatically assumed.
For those people that incorrectly assume they are entitled to more than copyright was intended for, and should be able to dictate what happens with their work after it would have expired from a copyright term, they have no moral room to complain when their entire copyright term is ignored from start to end. They are just being greedy and taking away from the betterment of mankind in doing so.
Screw them. Those people are the true leeches.
Hate to tell you, but you dont make hardware compatable with software... its the other way around... Software has to be made compatable with hardware.
All of MS, apple, and linux, are perfectly capable this very moment to have their OS compiled for any CPU type and hardware their respective makers would want.
The fact they do not do this is NOT the hardware makers problem!
Don't blame hardware makers that MS *CHOOSES* not to cross compile, or that Apple *CHOOSES* not to cross compile, their software!
And especially dont blame anyone but yourself about Linux, since you can go cross compile it yourself if you so desired, and your lack of doing so is your own fault.
x86 hardware did not get popular BECAUSE it has the most software for it, it got popular because it was CHEAPEST, and it only has the most software for it because it was popular due to being cheap.
Take all software away this second and hardware can still be used.
Take the hardware away and there isnt much us non chip-fabing people can do with the software now is there...
Which is fairly irrelevant, since what you get at the end of the chain is the very same result anti-DRM people are said to loathe: they are not in full control of the computer they own. If I try to install (either pirate or legit) Windows on a machine I bought from you and it gives me a 'no go', be sure I'll carefully consider the alternatives before doing business with your company again.
So by this logic, you blame apple because MS doesn't make windows run on macs, and you blame sun because MS doesn't make windows run on Sparcs?
Oh no, MS doesn't add features to Windows so blame the hardware companys!
Better throw away your toaster too, as I suspect MS isnt going to fix windows to boot on it as well. Fear the lack of control over your own purchased toaster!
I know your just a troll, but sheesh, try and atleast make Some sense.
Even worse than that, any works of art I create myself and willingly/freely share and of course encourage others to do so, others can be arrested for doing just that.
This law takes the choice away from the artist fully and makes it a crime to not sell any copyrighted work you create.
I really hope they Very narrowly define p2p here as so its useless...
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the difference is that sourceforge won't host a closed-source product.
Depends if you mean sourceforge the site, or sourceforge the software.
The site (sourceforge.net), will not host closed source.
The software (which sourceforge the site runs) is GPL and can be installed on your own server to do anything you would like it to do.
It can be found at http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/alexandria
[snip]I have a feeling this is going to be used more as one of those charges they use when they need an excuse to do a raid, and dont have enough evidence for what they're going for.
Disagree? Lemme hear it.
As this item only applys to a felony charge related to the false info, chances are if they suspect you commited a felony they will raid you and do whatever anyways.
Well i can certainly see some overzealous DA go on a fishing filing these charges against you while all the other stuff is being cleared up (because they throw in the kitchen sink to see what will stick) and you may get nailed on this alone, as its the only "real" charge left over from the fishing expedition.
But if no felony charges stick, then this 'charge' won't matter.
this does not directly outlaw it, instead extending the penalty by seven years for felonies performed using such fraudulent websites.
Actually browser based browsers are kinda handy.
:}
Mainly when you can get an encrypted SSL connection between you and the browser app and you dont trust your upstream (Be it ISP or place of work etc), atleast when you trust the upstream of the app server more so...
Of course yes you still need a browser installed locally
Actually the one nice thing about the safe harbor provision for ISPs is that the ISP has the ability to deligate a DMCA contact at their company, and the provision specifically states the notice -must- be delivered to this contact.
D 129
The way we handled this at the ISP I used to work at was, on the main webpage, as an image of course, was a message stating all DMCA and copyright notices must be sent to [address here] which was an address at our domain which forwarded directly to our lawyer and not us.
We also had to file this address somewhere, I believe the copyright office, but I am not sure on that detail as it was our legal department that handled it.
If a bot is doing whois lookups for an email and it is sent to one of the addresses we get at the NOC, the letter can be legally ignored.
If its not sent to the specific address, we have not been notified as per the safe harbor provision and thusly have a legal defense.
In our case, one would have to go to our website to look for contact addresses, and look either on the main page or the contact page to find the right address.
Any emails like that sent to us were ignored.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QI
The above URL is the only quote I can find at the moment, but it states:
In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)]
Seeing as we did get a large number of claims of copyright infringement sent to our staff and support addresses, and to my knowledge our legal team never mentioned any, it looks like both bots and stupid people don't look up the correct address at all.
I could be wrong, but in IE, (snip)
So much for their customers with SCO unix or newly paid linux licences!
Way to cater to someone elses OS and not your own there...
> But the parent is correct in that if the data being accessed on the remote
> network only requires a simple password, there would be a substantial weak
> point.
The article is about quantum encryption... Has nothing to do with security outside of quantum encryption.
Bad passwords cant be fixed with quantum encryption anymore than bad passwords can be fixed with an ethernet cable or a fiber strand.
It's amazing how this technology comes about and says 'we solved this one problem' and everyone bitches that it doesnt solve every last security problem that does or could exist.
The grandparent is totally wrong in that a bad password is a problem with quantum encryption. This doesnt even TRY to address that, so the fact its not fixed is called 'irrelivant', not 'a problem'.
This concept was also used in the AD&D game system under an expansion called 'Spell Jammer'.
There was also a book series from TSR (The only spell jammer series) which was based on this same idea.
Its also where I got the idea for my domain (brokensphere.net)
> If you have a million or two dollars worth of IP in your account, with no
;}
> backups, then you deserve to lose it.
indeed. I'm not saying this is a ligit situation here. Just something a person could do in a way that the courts would agree with.
If you leave a system unpatched, and someone cracks it and trashes the system, it still falls under computer crime laws no matter how stupid we would argue it is to put an unprotected system on a public network.
The courts would even side with an idiot that didn't set a root/admin password and had 'damages' caused by someone simply logging in and viewing files.
In other words, the judge won't blame a stupid person for doing something stupid like not using backups or taking proper security measures (when it comes to computers atleast)
Then again, who's to say i'm not rendering the next LoTR and it gets deleted while in progress or something
There will be technical flaws with any argument put forth, but looking at it from a legal point of view, people could very well get away with a claim like this.
> The publisher could get sued.
More like -will- get sued.
I'd gladly admit to one count of copyright voilation and pay my dues if I could at the same time prove he deleted a million or two dollars worth of IP from my account.
Then on top of it, toss in any/all new malware and trojan horse laws at him, add a pinch of whatever they are calling 'cyber terrorism' nowadays, mix, stir, sit back and laugh all the way to the bank.
Worst part for the author about this, his software is 'out there'. It's not something he can easily take back.
One could spend a few months cleaning up any piracy connections they have, building/collecting this few million dollars in ligit IP, and install his software knowing what will happen. Its alot harder to prove someone isnt stupid than it is to prove this software author intended for his program to do this.
About the only recourse is posting a warning on his site that whichever version this is is seriously broken and will (read; WILL) cause damage to your system.
I'm sure there are even courts that will not look favourably at that, based fully on his intent.
Dude seriously needs some perspective.
It may feel good to pump 12 rounds into an unarmed tresspasser, but comon...