yeah, it would have flaws. But assume its there, then it could be used with opensource software as controller. No need for closed source to provide restricted access.
of course, you can try to rip the display signal short before the tft-panel. But this is much harder to rip than just saving a movie file. you will also need to re-encode it and have some quality loss. It will certainly make ripping much harder.
no, its not decoded in the monitor, but by some trusted piece of software, which is certified just to decode and forward, and not to save it to the disk. And there are ways to protect against replay-attacks.
no, it can be another way. just think of a trusted media path (using trusted computing and a TPM). Then the TPM chip can negotiate a shared secret between your monitor and the site serving the video. then the whole software can be opensource, just as it can with SSL, and it will always see only the encrypted data. In this way, trusted computing is good for opensource, because there is no need for security by closed source (obscurity) anymore. The only problem... every company can use this to sell a minimum only, like pay-per-view business models instead of pay-per-download models. But the problem here is the business model, not the tech.
nope. of course you could say "hey, the guy blocking cookies is here again", but as soon as there a two of them, its hard to distinguish them. if you allow cookies, you get a different fingerprint than everyone else, if the site gives you an id. the more people block tracking, the bigger the anonmous mass gets.
these people are not your problem. Of course, one post can link the names. But it does it on a content-layer, not on a semantic layer. So it will only link them, for people reading the post, not for data mining companies like facebook, because they cannot parse the post in the right way, yet.
you need just one VM, which has a fingerprint, which is shared with many other VM users. think of the tails live-system for example. I think it has a fingerprint, which is unique to one version of tails, and shared between many users of this version.
> "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin for example they are so stupid, they mix up average and median.
But one link between them is easier to erase, and harder to find while its still there. So chances are good, nobody will find the link, if its only a single link.
On the other hand... if you comment some blog and it demands an e-mail address, just make some up, its never verified. I think for comments and such stuff, accounts/email-addresses should always be optional, only for the case you want some reply from the author or notification about further comments.
yeah, but the number of clusters is not a power of two, anymore. I think mostly, because when it were possible, the vendors wanted to sell 10 GB instead of 8 or something like this. And when your current tech allows 100 GB on one platter, you may end up using 5 of them (500GB) and not a much bigger drive with 8. So the powers of two find a end, where the previous is too little and the next one is still too high.
RAM: if they make a bigger module, they usually just double the number of chips on the module -> 2^x. Another reason here is, that you have a nice address, which ends with all zeros (or fills the complete addressfield), when your maximum address is a power of two. Harddrives: they are produced independend from such considerations, you have like 100 GB, 500GB, 3 TB... all of them do not fit in a nice 2^x scheme anyway. Thats the reason, they are produced in GB and not in GiB units.
nope, you fail hard.
How do you detect a bad configured SPF? You are getting a mail, from a server listed as "cannot send mail". Now this can happen, when you have perfectly setup SPF and a spammer just spams from his own host ignoring that you're using SPF. Now the target system bounces the spam to your system, saying "hey, spammer-system cannot send mail for you". You set up SPF, because you WANTED that the spammer-system cannot send mail for you. But you certainly did not want other systems to bounce the rejected mails to you.
if you assume, that people do not respect copyright, you do not need to consider the people trading legal copies... because THEY respect your copyright. So on your price thoughts, you would need to say "prices are high because of pirated copies", which was debunked many times before.
yeah, and the problem is, there are servers, which send NDR because of SPF. And even when you are a server in the chain, which accepted the message, you SHOULD NOT send a NDR, because SPF is saying "hey, the sender-info is wrong". So a NDR is pointless, in ANY case, even when you accepted the message for delivery.
do you know xchat? the windows version is costly, because maintaining the installer was too much work to do it for free. But everyone just uses the inofficial binaries (silverex, the last time i checked).
No, because you send the NDR to a adress, which was detected by SPF as NOT being the source of the message. So you reach the wrong person. So instead you should just send nothing, if you filter based on SPF, because the whole point in spf is, when you filter it, you do it because you do not know the source (and the pretended source-adress is wrong)
> spamhaus do not use them. they are making money with unblocking. so potential clients are not reachable, just because spamhaus blocked them and they do not even know it (or do not see the point in paying for the spamhaus blackmailing)
you say it: best practice. This means, there are other practices (for a reason). They might not be the best, but in some cases they are needed. strict SPF filtering breaks them.
Slashdot Mirror
its showing you: hey, IE is not hanging.
they should become longer instead of moving backwards.
yeah, it would have flaws. But assume its there, then it could be used with opensource software as controller. No need for closed source to provide restricted access.
of course, you can try to rip the display signal short before the tft-panel. But this is much harder to rip than just saving a movie file. you will also need to re-encode it and have some quality loss. It will certainly make ripping much harder.
no, its not decoded in the monitor, but by some trusted piece of software, which is certified just to decode and forward, and not to save it to the disk.
And there are ways to protect against replay-attacks.
thats like saying "gpg cannot be opensource, because you need to hide your key".
no, it can be another way. just think of a trusted media path (using trusted computing and a TPM). Then the TPM chip can negotiate a shared secret between your monitor and the site serving the video. then the whole software can be opensource, just as it can with SSL, and it will always see only the encrypted data. In this way, trusted computing is good for opensource, because there is no need for security by closed source (obscurity) anymore. ... every company can use this to sell a minimum only, like pay-per-view business models instead of pay-per-download models. But the problem here is the business model, not the tech.
The only problem
nope. of course you could say "hey, the guy blocking cookies is here again", but as soon as there a two of them, its hard to distinguish them. if you allow cookies, you get a different fingerprint than everyone else, if the site gives you an id. the more people block tracking, the bigger the anonmous mass gets.
these people are not your problem.
Of course, one post can link the names. But it does it on a content-layer, not on a semantic layer. So it will only link them, for people reading the post, not for data mining companies like facebook, because they cannot parse the post in the right way, yet.
you need just one VM, which has a fingerprint, which is shared with many other VM users. think of the tails live-system for example. I think it has a fingerprint, which is unique to one version of tails, and shared between many users of this version.
> "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
for example they are so stupid, they mix up average and median.
they would have had trouble, if you would have never given them your realname.
But one link between them is easier to erase, and harder to find while its still there. So chances are good, nobody will find the link, if its only a single link.
On the other hand ... if you comment some blog and it demands an e-mail address, just make some up, its never verified. I think for comments and such stuff, accounts/email-addresses should always be optional, only for the case you want some reply from the author or notification about further comments.
yeah, but the number of clusters is not a power of two, anymore. I think mostly, because when it were possible, the vendors wanted to sell 10 GB instead of 8 or something like this. And when your current tech allows 100 GB on one platter, you may end up using 5 of them (500GB) and not a much bigger drive with 8. So the powers of two find a end, where the previous is too little and the next one is still too high.
RAM: if they make a bigger module, they usually just double the number of chips on the module -> 2^x. Another reason here is, that you have a nice address, which ends with all zeros (or fills the complete addressfield), when your maximum address is a power of two. ... all of them do not fit in a nice 2^x scheme anyway. Thats the reason, they are produced in GB and not in GiB units.
Harddrives: they are produced independend from such considerations, you have like 100 GB, 500GB, 3 TB
nope, you fail hard.
How do you detect a bad configured SPF? You are getting a mail, from a server listed as "cannot send mail". Now this can happen, when you have perfectly setup SPF and a spammer just spams from his own host ignoring that you're using SPF. Now the target system bounces the spam to your system, saying "hey, spammer-system cannot send mail for you".
You set up SPF, because you WANTED that the spammer-system cannot send mail for you. But you certainly did not want other systems to bounce the rejected mails to you.
> Revenue *is* affected by piracy
yes.
But its debunked, that piracy is the reason for high prices. Even with little to no piracy, the price level stays the same.
if you assume, that people do not respect copyright, you do not need to consider the people trading legal copies ... because THEY respect your copyright.
So on your price thoughts, you would need to say "prices are high because of pirated copies", which was debunked many times before.
yeah, and the problem is, there are servers, which send NDR because of SPF.
And even when you are a server in the chain, which accepted the message, you SHOULD NOT send a NDR, because SPF is saying "hey, the sender-info is wrong". So a NDR is pointless, in ANY case, even when you accepted the message for delivery.
do you know xchat? the windows version is costly, because maintaining the installer was too much work to do it for free.
But everyone just uses the inofficial binaries (silverex, the last time i checked).
No, because you send the NDR to a adress, which was detected by SPF as NOT being the source of the message. So you reach the wrong person. So instead you should just send nothing, if you filter based on SPF, because the whole point in spf is, when you filter it, you do it because you do not know the source (and the pretended source-adress is wrong)
then somebody else will provide free binaries.
> spamhaus
do not use them. they are making money with unblocking. so potential clients are not reachable, just because spamhaus blocked them and they do not even know it (or do not see the point in paying for the spamhaus blackmailing)
you say it: best practice.
This means, there are other practices (for a reason). They might not be the best, but in some cases they are needed. strict SPF filtering breaks them.
you are destroying the sense of SPF.
consider someone spams you from a faked domain (the thing spf should prevent). Then you send backscatter-spam to the real domain.
fail.