It seems to me that the entire point of DRM technology is to remove the cd/dvd/physical media from the equation and thereby 1) track customers more efficiently (by requiring them to verify ownership from time to time) 2) prevent people from sharing or reselling whatever DRM enabled IP they have purchased.
This is an encroaching invasion of privacy and a perversion of the spirit of commerce and as such I think the FSF is right to be worried.
I just recieved voicemail on my Vonage phone saying that Vonage is going IPO, and that slashdotters may be eligible to purchase worthless stock at rip-off attic pricing. More information is is available on slashdot.com
This is hilarious. After doing the above I came up with something that looked very much like a U.S. twenty dollar bill. I should mention this is inside Photoshop CS. Now when I try to copy this image (so that I can take it out of CS) I get the Counterfeit Detection crap. I guess Adobe wants to be my only source for counterfeiting currency. Strangely enough, it lets me save the file though (it didn't let me open the original scan). So to sum up, Photoshop CS won't let you copy currency into it if you've got some outside and it won't let you copy currency out of it if it's inside; sort of like a maximum security prison
I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet. But the currency detection scheme is somewhat sensitive to brightness. I took an image made it 74% brighter and Photoshop CS still flagged it. At 75% I was able to paste it in and with a little bit of brightness reduction here and a little bit of contrast addition there I got something close to the original image. I have no doubt, however that information was lost but I'm sure someone can come up with a lossless way of doing an operation prior to importing currency into CS and doing the inverse operation once they're in.
There are many problems with bouncing it off of a celestial body. First of all you're going to lose information without a doubt at the point of bouncing. Second there's no guarantee that your going to get back enough of the signal to understand it when and if it finally does comes back. Also, if your worried about people finding out too early this is a bad idea since space travel will eventually become more common and people who want to find out your secret before everyone else could just fly out and intercept it. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better idea. Perhaps you could enclose your message in a time capsule and toss it into the ocean. I doubt current technology is sophisticated enough to find an object say the size of a baseball in the Atlantic. If that is too easy then you could toss a couple dummy capsules in there too to make the search last longer. If it's too hard you could put a timer in the capsule and have it emit weak radio singals once you think the world is ready for your discovery. Or you could include chemicals or materials that would respond well to sonar if it's still too easy. As with bouncing light into space there's still the problem of controlling who gets the message. In either case it won't be the world as a whole. I suppose the light-bouncing idea is more likely too be implemented by more people (scientists and governments) and these people are sometimes trustworthy. Maybe it would be best to split up the message. Sure, that would make it more difficult to predict when it will be decoded but you'd have a better chance of it being decoded by lots of people instead of just one person. In conclusion, if you have made an earth shattering discovery please don't hide it. Just tell us, we're big kids now, and we'll try not to wet our pants.
i wonder exactly how this scheme will be implemented. will the list simply look at filenames? If I were to rename "KingNothing.mp3" as "HapyBirthday.mp3" would it find its way onto the network? Oh, right, Happy B-Day is still copyrighted. Then, say I named it "StarSpangledBanner.mp3." Would it then be allowed? Maybe they examine the actual sound data. This is doomed to failure. Knowing the RIAA this is a sinister ploy to destroy our music-napping toy.
Slashdot Mirror
If this thing is sold below cost and is anywhere near as hackable as the xbox, this could be very good news indeed.
It seems to me that the entire point of DRM technology is to remove the cd/dvd/physical media from the equation and thereby 1) track customers more efficiently (by requiring them to verify ownership from time to time) 2) prevent people from sharing or reselling whatever DRM enabled IP they have purchased.
This is an encroaching invasion of privacy and a perversion of the spirit of commerce and as such I think the FSF is right to be worried.
I just recieved voicemail on my Vonage phone saying that Vonage is going IPO, and that slashdotters may be eligible to purchase worthless stock at rip-off attic pricing. More information is is available on slashdot.com
"Eve" rhymes with "Steve". So, "Second Android Ever" should rhyme with "Second Android Stever"
Oh, wait. Jokes aren't supposed to be dissected--I'll have to discuss this with my programmer...
i'd hit it. :)
I yell really loudly
This is hilarious. After doing the above I came up with something that looked very much like a U.S. twenty dollar bill. I should mention this is inside Photoshop CS. Now when I try to copy this image (so that I can take it out of CS) I get the Counterfeit Detection crap. I guess Adobe wants to be my only source for counterfeiting currency. Strangely enough, it lets me save the file though (it didn't let me open the original scan). So to sum up, Photoshop CS won't let you copy currency into it if you've got some outside and it won't let you copy currency out of it if it's inside; sort of like a maximum security prison
I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet. But the currency detection scheme is somewhat sensitive to brightness. I took an image made it 74% brighter and Photoshop CS still flagged it. At 75% I was able to paste it in and with a little bit of brightness reduction here and a little bit of contrast addition there I got something close to the original image. I have no doubt, however that information was lost but I'm sure someone can come up with a lossless way of doing an operation prior to importing currency into CS and doing the inverse operation once they're in.
There are many problems with bouncing it off of a celestial body. First of all you're going to lose information without a doubt at the point of bouncing. Second there's no guarantee that your going to get back enough of the signal to understand it when and if it finally does comes back. Also, if your worried about people finding out too early this is a bad idea since space travel will eventually become more common and people who want to find out your secret before everyone else could just fly out and intercept it. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better idea. Perhaps you could enclose your message in a time capsule and toss it into the ocean. I doubt current technology is sophisticated enough to find an object say the size of a baseball in the Atlantic. If that is too easy then you could toss a couple dummy capsules in there too to make the search last longer. If it's too hard you could put a timer in the capsule and have it emit weak radio singals once you think the world is ready for your discovery. Or you could include chemicals or materials that would respond well to sonar if it's still too easy. As with bouncing light into space there's still the problem of controlling who gets the message. In either case it won't be the world as a whole. I suppose the light-bouncing idea is more likely too be implemented by more people (scientists and governments) and these people are sometimes trustworthy. Maybe it would be best to split up the message. Sure, that would make it more difficult to predict when it will be decoded but you'd have a better chance of it being decoded by lots of people instead of just one person. In conclusion, if you have made an earth shattering discovery please don't hide it. Just tell us, we're big kids now, and we'll try not to wet our pants.
Dios mio!
i had no idea compact diskettes were flammable. i can only imagine what horrendous deathtraps aol cd factories must be.
i wonder exactly how this scheme will be implemented. will the list simply look at filenames? If I were to rename "KingNothing.mp3" as "HapyBirthday.mp3" would it find its way onto the network? Oh, right, Happy B-Day is still copyrighted. Then, say I named it "StarSpangledBanner.mp3." Would it then be allowed? Maybe they examine the actual sound data. This is doomed to failure. Knowing the RIAA this is a sinister ploy to destroy our music-napping toy.