While the government's response to Katrina was slow and poorly executed, it was not contingent upon ability to pay.
Yes, it was. The people who could afford to leave the area using their own transport by-and-large did so, and were therefore not at risk of death. Those who had either (a) no transport or (b) no funds to pay for emergency accomodation were basically left at the government's mercy, and so huge numbers of them were still in the danger area when K struck, because the arrangements made in advance (despite the fact that there was plenty of warning that it would be bad) were totally inadequate.
Why would DVD Jon or anyone want to develop a crack that only benefits a minority of users and applies to audio format that is non-standard even after decryption.
Because:
(a) hardware players that support WMA are cheaper than those that support AAC. If all you care about is yourself, and you don't have an iPod, why would you pick FairPlay? (b) if you want to release stuff, rather than just crack it for your own use, why does it matter what format it comes from... you'll want to transcode to MP3 (which is the only format supported on every player) anyway. At this point, you'll just crack whichever scheme is the easiest to crack.
"We want music without DRM. But we can't license FairPlay, 'cus hackers would... remove the DRM. The DRM we claim we dont really want. Yeah."
Did you actually read what he said? What he said was more like, "if we license FairPlay, when hackers work out how to strip the DRM we won't be able to release a new version to stop them quickly enough, and the record companies will shut down iTMS."
Have you actually read his essay? It makes perfect sense, if you ask me. Perhaps they've found some holes tricky to fix, yes. But they still need to be able to respond quickly to a hole that the record companies demand they fix quickly (that this hasn't happened over previous holes doesn't mean it won't happen in future).
Anyway, QTFairUse isn't a DRM crack, it's a player crack. Player cracks are almost impossible to prevent (not that DRM cracks are much harder...) without OS support. I bet Apple release an iTunes version for Vista that it doesn't work with.
Hang on... so in this case, where it's a Microsoft product that's fairing better you apparently can being into play the 'well, it's not used on nearly as many devices as the Apple version' shtick
Hmmm...? Last figures I saw suggest fairplay only had 54% market share (it's on the register, sometime in '06, I think). That's hardly absolute dominance. OK, so it's 5 times as much as the nearest competitor, but those competitors ALL use WMA.
Doesn't mean anything when you consider the market share of Apple vs. all of the Microsoft-licensed stores combined. Clearly people will be cracking the more-popular DRM, and that happens to be Apple's FairPlay.
Why would people do that? The best target, surely, is the easiest one to crack (assuming price and availability are equal)? Because you don't have to crack for everyone, you just crack the content you want to release and then let everyone copy the released content.
Which is a classic example of Jobs' point -- there are plenty of vendors out there still selling WM10 (and WM9) content, so there's no necessity to update to the latest version of the DRM, despite the fact that a fix for the flaw has been released.
If you were using an iPod with FairPlay, however, you wouldn't have a lot of choice -- your only source of content would be iTMS, which would have forced you to upgrade by only offering content in the latest version.
Closed DRM == one set of eyes for the "good" guys (arguably the bad guys in this case but whatever) == pwned by the freedom fighters. licensed DRM == several sets of eyes, eyes with different corporate mentalities, eyes with different outlooks, thus sorta like OSS == less breaches.
I don't think this works for DRM. DRM is a deeply flawed concept -- in the long run, it can't work. Sooner or later, there will be a breach that's irreparable. Many eyes can't prevent this because it's a fundamental problem with the concept.
Jobs' essay was correct, I think: when that breach occurs, it is much easier to deal with if all implementations are under your own control, than if you have to coordinate a response between all of your licensees.
Umm. No duh. Its been speculated for a long time that general purpose quantum computing would be near impossible.
I think you missed the parent's point. This machine is not a general quantum computer (note he didn't say "general-purpose" quantum computer) because it isn't capable of fully entangling all 16 qubits, if I understand the explanations on the blog correctly. IANAPP, etc.
I haven't, but have heard from people who have done it successfully. Apparently, it's also not against the EULA if you get the MSDN subscriber's version.
You're free to install Vista Home on a mac using bootcamp.
You're not free to install Vista home on any virtual machine including vmware under windows, bochs on linux or parallels for Mac.
Even that's not correct, as I read the EULA. What it says on the subject is:
"You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."
Note the implicit assumption apparent within this phrasing the "virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system" is seen as distinct from "the licensed device". Note that the Home Basic EULA includes the text "Licensed Device. You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time." This *could* be interpreted as allowing you to run a VM that accesses the same copy of the OS install as is on your hard disk, as long as there are only a total of two processors running those two versions at any time. The clarification is necessary to point out that this isn't the case.
IANAL, etc. But then neither are any of the people I've seen complaining about this, so whatever.
Look at the picture - do you see a machine that isn't much wider than a 5.25" drive bay, because that's what I see in that picture. I don't think those dimensions are even approximately right; I've seen one of these cases, they sit on the shelf at my local computer shop. They ain't 11.2" wide. They're similar to the machine I have sitting on my desk which is only 9.5" wide.
Unless you can show that not only did somebody else do it first, but that he had some prior knowledge that it was done before him...
Whether somebody else had done it first or not is largely irrelevant. First, you'd have to show that copyright exists, which means showing that the move in question isn't trivial. Then you'd have to show that using the move doesn't constitute fair use, which might be hard in the case of YouTube videos.
No more copyrighted music at weddings without a license.
This is usually the case, not something that is "from now on". It's a public performance, so you (or, more usually, the venue) usually need to acquire public performance rights. ASCAP provide these rights in the USA, although they're a little cagey about prices. I don't think it would cost much for a single event, but like I say the venue usually pays an annual subscription.
I'm sure somebody owns the copyright on "Here comes the Bride".
It was first performed in 1850, so it is now public domain, even in the USA.
That's not a generation gap talking. That's the fact that less than one person in a hundred actually finds this stuff interesting.
This is how it was, and how it is. In the middle, there was a spike of people looking at lists of well-paid jobs and industry articles complaining about a shortage of people with the skills to fill them, and seeing those three-stage plans without the missing step. Most of those are gone, now. We're back to just the enthusiasts.
Look, I hate to defend Apple's pricing because it's so crappy overall, but now you're making me do it. The Packard Bell you linked to is a full sized desktop. The Mac Mini is about the size of a cable modem, suitable to be placed in a living room entertainment center (where a desktop PC's fan would be intolerably loud). They're not equivalent.
OK:
EZ PACK CUBE MICRO ATX 650W SMALL FACTOR CASE CASEZCUBE £55.05
£55.05 Remove Item ASUS P5PE VM 865G SND LAN VID CORE 2 DUO MOTHERBOARD MBDASUP5PEVM £34.91
£34.91 Remove Item INTEL PENTIUM CORE 2 DUO E6300 2 X 1 86 1066 Mhz CPU CPUINTCORE186 £129.64
£129.64 Remove Item SAMSUNG HD080HJ 80GB 7200RPM 8MB SATA HARD DRIVE HDDSAMSATA80-8 £30.63
£30.63 Remove Item MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME BASIC 32 BIT OEM SOFMSBASIC £55.10
£55.10 Remove Item LITEON DVD ROM 16X BLACK DVDLIT-BLK £9.26
£9.26 Remove Item 512mb DDR 2 PC4200 533MHz MEMORY MEMMIC533512 £29.36
£29.36 Remove Item SAPPHIRE ATI RADEON X300 SE 256MB PCI E GRAPHICS CARD DISSAPX300SE256PCI £29.87
£29.87 Remove Item
Total £373.82
Plus the extra twenty quid that particular supplier charges as a system build cost, and that's an ATX machine with a faster processor and a larger hard disk than the Mac Mini, for slightly less cash. If I'd rather use Linux, I can save the £55 for Windows Vista OEM and just buy it bare without an OS; this isn't an option with the Mac.
Every browser renders the content differently, even if you follow all the standards to the letter. That's just not acceptable.
If that's not acceptable, you're doing something wrong.
No, if that's not acceptable you have different requirements. We aren't talking about web pages, we're talking about passing formatted documents that are intended to be printed on paper from point to point so that they look the same. It's a different application. It has different requirements. Therefore the solutions are different.
Slashdot Mirror
Or to protect a company from potential legal liability from overly sensative workers. (I mean really... it has nothing to do with productivity.
I dunno, I think my productivity has gone up since we blocked access to porn. And I'm the IT manager.
While the government's response to Katrina was slow and poorly executed, it was not contingent upon ability to pay.
Yes, it was. The people who could afford to leave the area using their own transport by-and-large did so, and were therefore not at risk of death. Those who had either (a) no transport or (b) no funds to pay for emergency accomodation were basically left at the government's mercy, and so huge numbers of them were still in the danger area when K struck, because the arrangements made in advance (despite the fact that there was plenty of warning that it would be bad) were totally inadequate.
Why would DVD Jon or anyone want to develop a crack that only benefits a minority of users and applies to audio format that is non-standard even after decryption.
Because:
(a) hardware players that support WMA are cheaper than those that support AAC. If all you care about is yourself, and you don't have an iPod, why would you pick FairPlay?
(b) if you want to release stuff, rather than just crack it for your own use, why does it matter what format it comes from... you'll want to transcode to MP3 (which is the only format supported on every player) anyway. At this point, you'll just crack whichever scheme is the easiest to crack.
Jobs' statements seem to boil down to this:
"We want music without DRM. But we can't license FairPlay, 'cus hackers would... remove the DRM. The DRM we claim we dont really want. Yeah."
Did you actually read what he said? What he said was more like, "if we license FairPlay, when hackers work out how to strip the DRM we won't be able to release a new version to stop them quickly enough, and the record companies will shut down iTMS."
Have you actually read his essay? It makes perfect sense, if you ask me. Perhaps they've found some holes tricky to fix, yes. But they still need to be able to respond quickly to a hole that the record companies demand they fix quickly (that this hasn't happened over previous holes doesn't mean it won't happen in future).
Anyway, QTFairUse isn't a DRM crack, it's a player crack. Player cracks are almost impossible to prevent (not that DRM cracks are much harder...) without OS support. I bet Apple release an iTunes version for Vista that it doesn't work with.
Hang on... so in this case, where it's a Microsoft product that's fairing better you apparently can being into play the 'well, it's not used on nearly as many devices as the Apple version' shtick
Hmmm...? Last figures I saw suggest fairplay only had 54% market share (it's on the register, sometime in '06, I think). That's hardly absolute dominance. OK, so it's 5 times as much as the nearest competitor, but those competitors ALL use WMA.
Doesn't mean anything when you consider the market share of Apple vs. all of the Microsoft-licensed stores combined. Clearly people will be cracking the more-popular DRM, and that happens to be Apple's FairPlay.
Why would people do that? The best target, surely, is the easiest one to crack (assuming price and availability are equal)? Because you don't have to crack for everyone, you just crack the content you want to release and then let everyone copy the released content.
Which is a classic example of Jobs' point -- there are plenty of vendors out there still selling WM10 (and WM9) content, so there's no necessity to update to the latest version of the DRM, despite the fact that a fix for the flaw has been released.
If you were using an iPod with FairPlay, however, you wouldn't have a lot of choice -- your only source of content would be iTMS, which would have forced you to upgrade by only offering content in the latest version.
Closed DRM == one set of eyes for the "good" guys (arguably the bad guys in this case but whatever) == pwned by the freedom fighters.
licensed DRM == several sets of eyes, eyes with different corporate mentalities, eyes with different outlooks, thus sorta like OSS == less breaches.
I don't think this works for DRM. DRM is a deeply flawed concept -- in the long run, it can't work. Sooner or later, there will be a breach that's irreparable. Many eyes can't prevent this because it's a fundamental problem with the concept.
Jobs' essay was correct, I think: when that breach occurs, it is much easier to deal with if all implementations are under your own control, than if you have to coordinate a response between all of your licensees.
Perl.
Wrong. As far as current knowledge goes, a quantum computer is not a big help for cracking symmetric ciphers such as Triple DES or AES.
No, but it is rather handy against key exchange protocols, which will put all easily-practicable security systems at risk.
Umm. No duh. Its been speculated for a long time that general purpose quantum computing would be near impossible.
I think you missed the parent's point. This machine is not a general quantum computer (note he didn't say "general-purpose" quantum computer) because it isn't capable of fully entangling all 16 qubits, if I understand the explanations on the blog correctly. IANAPP, etc.
I'm thinking you maybe meant the number of digits? So a log(n)? What's the base?
I believe this is correct. From my limited understanding, the base would be 2^(number of qubits), so for qubits > bits in key, effectively O(1).
Do you consider photons particles or waves here[...]?
Yes.
Torches can't really be pointed, they just throw off light in all directions. Do you mean a flashlight?
In Britain, we call what you Americans call a flashlight a torch.
Anybody actually tried it?
I haven't, but have heard from people who have done it successfully. Apparently, it's also not against the EULA if you get the MSDN subscriber's version.
You're free to install Vista Home on a mac using bootcamp.
You're not free to install Vista home on any virtual machine including vmware under windows, bochs on linux or parallels for Mac.
Even that's not correct, as I read the EULA. What it says on the subject is:
"You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."
Note the implicit assumption apparent within this phrasing the "virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system" is seen as distinct from "the licensed device". Note that the Home Basic EULA includes the text "Licensed Device. You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time." This *could* be interpreted as allowing you to run a VM that accesses the same copy of the OS install as is on your hard disk, as long as there are only a total of two processors running those two versions at any time. The clarification is necessary to point out that this isn't the case.
IANAL, etc. But then neither are any of the people I've seen complaining about this, so whatever.
Look at the picture - do you see a machine that isn't much wider than a 5.25" drive bay, because that's what I see in that picture. I don't think those dimensions are even approximately right; I've seen one of these cases, they sit on the shelf at my local computer shop. They ain't 11.2" wide. They're similar to the machine I have sitting on my desk which is only 9.5" wide.
Unless you can show that not only did somebody else do it first, but that he had some prior knowledge that it was done before him...
Whether somebody else had done it first or not is largely irrelevant. First, you'd have to show that copyright exists, which means showing that the move in question isn't trivial. Then you'd have to show that using the move doesn't constitute fair use, which might be hard in the case of YouTube videos.
No more copyrighted music at weddings without a license.
This is usually the case, not something that is "from now on". It's a public performance, so you (or, more usually, the venue) usually need to acquire public performance rights. ASCAP provide these rights in the USA, although they're a little cagey about prices. I don't think it would cost much for a single event, but like I say the venue usually pays an annual subscription.
I'm sure somebody owns the copyright on "Here comes the Bride".
It was first performed in 1850, so it is now public domain, even in the USA.
Or, you know, during. Hell, it worked for John Travolta.
That's not a generation gap talking. That's the fact that less than one person in a hundred actually finds this stuff interesting.
This is how it was, and how it is. In the middle, there was a spike of people looking at lists of well-paid jobs and industry articles complaining about a shortage of people with the skills to fill them, and seeing those three-stage plans without the missing step. Most of those are gone, now. We're back to just the enthusiasts.
Look, I hate to defend Apple's pricing because it's so crappy overall, but now you're making me do it. The Packard Bell you linked to is a full sized desktop. The Mac Mini is about the size of a cable modem, suitable to be placed in a living room entertainment center (where a desktop PC's fan would be intolerably loud). They're not equivalent.
OK:
EZ PACK CUBE MICRO ATX 650W SMALL FACTOR CASE CASEZCUBE £55.05
£55.05 Remove Item
ASUS P5PE VM 865G SND LAN VID CORE 2 DUO MOTHERBOARD MBDASUP5PEVM £34.91
£34.91 Remove Item
INTEL PENTIUM CORE 2 DUO E6300 2 X 1 86 1066 Mhz CPU CPUINTCORE186 £129.64
£129.64 Remove Item
SAMSUNG HD080HJ 80GB 7200RPM 8MB SATA HARD DRIVE HDDSAMSATA80-8 £30.63
£30.63 Remove Item
MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME BASIC 32 BIT OEM SOFMSBASIC £55.10
£55.10 Remove Item
LITEON DVD ROM 16X BLACK DVDLIT-BLK £9.26
£9.26 Remove Item
512mb DDR 2 PC4200 533MHz MEMORY MEMMIC533512 £29.36
£29.36 Remove Item
SAPPHIRE ATI RADEON X300 SE 256MB PCI E GRAPHICS CARD DISSAPX300SE256PCI £29.87
£29.87 Remove Item
Total £373.82
Plus the extra twenty quid that particular supplier charges as a system build cost, and that's an ATX machine with a faster processor and a larger hard disk than the Mac Mini, for slightly less cash. If I'd rather use Linux, I can save the £55 for Windows Vista OEM and just buy it bare without an OS; this isn't an option with the Mac.
Can I watch protected AACS content under Linux?
Yes, although you'll have to have a Windows player that works in order to do it.
Every browser renders the content differently, even if you follow all the standards to the letter. That's just not acceptable.
If that's not acceptable, you're doing something wrong.
No, if that's not acceptable you have different requirements. We aren't talking about web pages, we're talking about passing formatted documents that are intended to be printed on paper from point to point so that they look the same. It's a different application. It has different requirements. Therefore the solutions are different.