TCPA lets you load any driver you want, but with the caveat that the media companies who supplied your DRM'd media files might not let you play it with that driver installed.
Since the implementation of the EUCD, it is now against the law to bypass "effective technical measures" that restrict what can be done with a copyrighted work, even if these restrictions involves rights you would normally have under copyright law.
I don't know about there, but over here in the UK we have the right to make a request to the Secretary of State (I'm not sure which one, but one of 'em), who should issue an order to the copyright holder to provide you with a copy that allows you to perform all of your legal rights.
296ZE Remedy where effective technological measures prevent permitted acts
(2) Where the application of any effective technological measure to a copyright work other than a computer program prevents a person from carrying out a permitted act in relation to that work then that person or a person being a representative of a class of persons prevented from carrying out a permitted act may issue a notice of complaint to the Secretary of State.
(3) Following receipt of a notice of complaint, the Secretary of State may give to the owner of that copyright work or an exclusive licensee such directions as appear to the Secretary of State to be requisite or expedient for the purpose of - (a) establishing whether any voluntary measure or agreement relevant to the copyright work the subject of the complaint subsists; or (b) (where it is established there is no subsisting voluntary measure or agreement) ensuring that the owner or exclusive licensee of that copyright work makes available to the complainant the means of carrying out the permitted act the subject of the complaint to the extent necessary to so benefit from that permitted act.
(Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended, available from here.)
Is this the same as when the DVD has all of the video located in "extras" files, and the main movie is only a few megs.
There's no such thing as an "extras" file or a "main movie" on a DVD. There are Video Title Sets, and Program Chains, and menus that allow you to select a VTS and a PGC from within it. None of them has a particular special meaning.
Presumably they're working on the assumption that a dedicated player's filesystem driver won't bother with niceties like ensuring it doesn't attempt to read past the end of a file. I'm not sure the assumption's entirely valid, particularly for players that can also play MP3 discs.
mechanism is a non-standard UDF A non-standard anything on a DVD makes it not a true DVD. We've seen this tried before on CDs and the response was that they'd have to stop using the "Compact Disc" trademark because that's only for people who follow the standard.
The big problem here is that most DVD players are a hell of a lot smarter than the average CD player. I bet there's a significant number of them that do the "right" thing according to the spec and fail to read a zero-length IFO file. I'm half-minded to put a hack into mkisofs so I can write one myself and try it out on a few models.
The damilola Taylor case is a good example. A couple lose their son to a pair of thugs who then get a measly 8 years (out in 4 or less) because some out of touch judge felt that perhaps they didn't mean to kill him. Who cares whether they meant to or not?
Listen: murder is defined as intentionally killing someone. It isn't murder if there is no intent to kill. Intending to kill somebody is a more serious offence than (say) intending to injure them and accidentally killing them (manslaughter). Therefore it must be punished more severely, because otherwise there is no deterrent to killing intentionally.
BTW: that's out in 4 or more, not or less. 4 years is the minimum time you'll serve on an 8 year sentence. If you're released and subsequently convicted of something else, you'll serve the remaining 4 on top of your next sentence. It's a deterrent against reoffending, and is quite effective. Something else most Daily Mail readers fail to grasp.
Who cares whether they meant to or not? It wasn't an accident yet they'll be able to live most of their lives free while a small boy is now 6 foot under and a family is wrecked. How is that justice?
Well, assuming it were true, it would stand a good chance of deterring others from doing the same things, and when they're released they might think twice before getting involved in other criminal activities due to having an extra 4 years of sentence hanging over their heads if they're sent back to prison.
It isn't except in the mind of wolly liberals who seem to think anyone can be reformed if given the chance. Well fsck reforming them, how about a bit of punishment for a change?
What good does punishment do? Executing them wouldn't bring back the life of the person they killed. It wouldn't make that person's family any happier (however much they might think it would). It would just mean that lives that *could* have reformed (not necessarily would, but there is every chance) would be wasted. Similarly if they were put in prison for the remainder of their lives. It would cost us, the British taxpayers, many thousands of pounds per annum, and would provide a small amount of comfort to one family. And stop the Daily Mail ranting.
Justice is about making the punishment as severe or worse than was done to the victim (something that rarely happens in the UK thanks to the weak minded liberals running the justice system).
Err... no. Not since some time in the 18th century has that been the case, in the UK or any other major western democracy. Justice systems exist to (a) deter crime and (b) rehabilitate offenders.
Yes, but I wouldn't say it's "used only to install or run the Product on your other Workstation Computers over an internal network", due to the lack of a network.
What they usually mean by this is that he is the last person whose identity is known who saw her. Obviously they should be following up leads at the supermarket trying to find anyone who saw her there, etc.
On the other hand, just ignoring the problem will drive some of those people to revenge killings - this is what happens in societies that break down, like Iraq. The government is seen as powerless or uncaring, so people take matters into their own hands...
And of course this is a real problem in the EU where the death sentence is illegal because of a variety of treaties. Revenge killings are commonplace and... oh, hold on, no they're not. Must be something wrong with your logic.
When a tragic event like that happens to a family, most of them would lose objectivity and be filled with regret, remorse, and hatred. That's why we need sane, objective people who have the capacity to see things clearly making these kinds of decisions, instead of bitter, reactionary victims.
Well said. This is precisely why I oppose current British government moves to "put the victim's needs at the centre of the criminal justice system." The victim has no part in the criminal justice system... they're too biased.
okay first thing WHAT IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE END USER LISCENSE AGREEMENT IS PERMITTED.
Err... no. EULAs don't get to forbid things. Actually, all they get to do is grant things. Copyright law forbids things:
17.--(1) The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.
(2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form. This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
"literary work" means any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung, and accordingly includes--
(a) a table or compilation, and
(b) a computer program;
Putting it onto a slipstreamed CD is "storing the work in [a] medium by electronic means", the work is "a computer program", so doing it is "an act restricted by copyright". At least in the EU. I understand US copyright law is fairly similar.
Is it annoying because you frequent dead hosts, or because you are running a port scanner?
And what, exactly, would be the problem if I tried to connect to every machine on my LAN to issue a command to them? Or ran a port scan over my LAN to determine if anyone was running an unauthorised server?
This is an interesting set of bullshit. I slipstream SP2 into the XP install media and it takes up no noticeable amount of space difference. Talking maybe 100megs and that's stretching. Considering it has a lot of low level security fixes and considering we haven't had a worm bust through since SP2s release I think it more of a help than any hinderence.
Hard disk space that is required if you install Windows XP SP2 from the Windows XP SP2 CD [...] 1560 MB peak usage during installation [...] You must also have 30 MB of free hard disk space on the first primary system partition.
So installing SP2 requires over 1.5GB of free disk space, according to MS's own information. Maybe they're wrong, but I've found it impossible to install it on my 1.9GB drive.
BTW, you say: "I slipstream SP2 into the XP install media". As far as I can tell, this process is illegal. There's nothing in the XP EULA that grants permission to make copies of the installation CD. The fact that various sources both inside & outside MS recommend it as a useful technique is besides the point: it is (at least technically) a copyright violation, and you could be sued for doing it.
As for 30 half-open TCP connections, what is the problem with that? P2P services don't rely solely on half-open connections and perform quite well under SP2 so what's the effective limit? You can't run a server on a desktop OS?
Servers don't typically need all that many half-open connections. Clients that connect to multiple servers for short-lived queries are the main problem. I run a variety of web spiders here, and find that they are substantially slower when run under SP2. As for P2P apps not having trouble with it, why do I see somanyoftheirforums discussing patches that change the limit?
Perhaps why HP home doesn't come with IIS. Are you going to fault MS with that decision as well?
No. But if XP RTM came with IIS but SP2 deleted it, I think I'd have a right to be pissed off. And certainly I think I would have a right to not "upgrade" if I didn't think it was worth it.
Besides that it's incredibly difficult to find a machine which doesn't have enough free space for SP2 since 40gig drives were already well into the norm when XP was released.
Well, yeah... actually I'd slightly disagree, I reckon most entry level machines were being sold with either 10GB or 20GB drives at that time, but it doesn't matter: the minimum specs for XP were basically a 4 year old machine when XP was released: 64MB RAM, Pentium 233 or better, and 1.5GB hard disk. Plenty of people, I'm sure, run XP on machines that aren't a lot better than that. I can't be the only one. That's the reason those are the minimum specs, right, to tell you that if you have a machine that meets them, Windows XP is an operating system you can use on it. Except now it turns out it isn't.
How bout you try again and mention a networking application which isn't feasible which is an end-user application and not a server.
Some P2P apps (try running a gnutella client that was released before SP2 on a SP2 machine; the results will be painful). Anything that downloads web content from multiple servers in parallel and which you expect to finish quickly (e.g., applications that summarize search results). Apparently it can cause issue
How many distros that were flying high five years ago exist now, in the same state of 'repair'? Yggdrasil? Slackware?
You have a strange definition of "flying high". In 2001, Yggdrasil hadn't issued any new releases for 6 years and Slackware was all but forgotten. The popular distros of the day were Red Hat, SuSE and Debian. Not a lot different from today, really.
and they provided that support through service packs and hotfixes, if your using sp1 you have chosen not to take them up on there support obligations and hence your on your own baby.
Due to the new features installed with SP2, its minimum hardware requirements (particularly in terms of disk space) are substantially higher than the original XP ones. That's a problem... MS were effectively promising that they would support XP running on that hardware... which included a hard disk that isn't even large enough to install SP2 if it didn't already have XP on it.
When the upgrade is included in the initial purchase cost then this is fine.
When the upgrade is not possible on computers that meet the original minimum spec for XP (1.5GB free disk space before you install; SP2 needs around 1.6GB free space to install over and above whatever your original XP install is taking), it isn't.
I shouldn't have to upgrade my hard disks (and go through the activation fiasco _again_) because MS have decided to end support early.
Name a feature addition in SP2 that's a showstopper for you.
* The limit of 30 half-open TCP connections means that using it for some networking applications is infeasible.
* The fact that it needs 1590MB of disk space on top of your XP SP1 installation in order to install means that it actually can't be installed on a machine with the original recommended minimum hard disk size for XP (1.5Gb = 1536MB total).
But carry on living in your fantasy world where everyone else has the exact same requirements and usage patterns you do.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it work?
It looks like their solution is badly implemented, ref. pagefile attack. So no, it doesn't work.
Not only that, it *can't* work. So the boot loader complains if the kernel doesn't have the right signature. Well, hack the boot loader too, then...
Note that running with a modified boot loader will effectively disabled access to any files on your system protected by TCPM.
TCPA lets you load any driver you want, but with the caveat that the media companies who supplied your DRM'd media files might not let you play it with that driver installed.
I don't know about there, but over here in the UK we have the right to make a request to the Secretary of State (I'm not sure which one, but one of 'em), who should issue an order to the copyright holder to provide you with a copy that allows you to perform all of your legal rights.
(Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended, available from here.)
Is this the same as when the DVD has all of the video located in "extras" files, and the main movie is only a few megs.
There's no such thing as an "extras" file or a "main movie" on a DVD. There are Video Title Sets, and Program Chains, and menus that allow you to select a VTS and a PGC from within it. None of them has a particular special meaning.
Presumably they're working on the assumption that a dedicated player's filesystem driver won't bother with niceties like ensuring it doesn't attempt to read past the end of a file. I'm not sure the assumption's entirely valid, particularly for players that can also play MP3 discs.
mechanism is a non-standard UDF A non-standard anything on a DVD makes it not a true DVD. We've seen this tried before on CDs and the response was that they'd have to stop using the "Compact Disc" trademark because that's only for people who follow the standard.
The big problem here is that most DVD players are a hell of a lot smarter than the average CD player. I bet there's a significant number of them that do the "right" thing according to the spec and fail to read a zero-length IFO file. I'm half-minded to put a hack into mkisofs so I can write one myself and try it out on a few models.
The damilola Taylor case is a good example. A couple lose
their son to a pair of thugs who then get a measly 8 years (out in 4 or
less) because some out of touch judge felt that perhaps they didn't mean
to kill him. Who cares whether they meant to or not?
Listen: murder is defined as intentionally killing someone. It isn't murder if there is no intent to kill. Intending to kill somebody is a more serious offence than (say) intending to injure them and accidentally killing them (manslaughter). Therefore it must be punished more severely, because otherwise there is no deterrent to killing intentionally.
Besides, you seem to have your facts confused. The men accused of killing Damilola Taylor were acquitted on the basis of evidence that they made calls on their mobile phones from too great a distance away from the crime scene to have made it there. Nothing to do with an "out of touch judge" or any such rubbish: cold, hard, logical evidence that they did not commit the crime.
BTW: that's out in 4 or more, not or less. 4 years is the minimum time you'll serve on an 8 year sentence. If you're released and subsequently convicted of something else, you'll serve the remaining 4 on top of your next sentence. It's a deterrent against reoffending, and is quite effective. Something else most Daily Mail readers fail to grasp.
Who cares whether they meant to or not? It wasn't an accident
yet they'll be able to live most of their lives free while a small boy
is now 6 foot under and a family is wrecked. How is that justice?
Well, assuming it were true, it would stand a good chance of deterring others from doing the same things, and when they're released they might think twice before getting involved in other criminal activities due to having an extra 4 years of sentence hanging over their heads if they're sent back to prison.
It isn't
except in the mind of wolly liberals who seem to think anyone can be
reformed if given the chance. Well fsck reforming them, how about a bit
of punishment for a change?
What good does punishment do? Executing them wouldn't bring back the life of the person they killed. It wouldn't make that person's family any happier (however much they might think it would). It would just mean that lives that *could* have reformed (not necessarily would, but there is every chance) would be wasted. Similarly if they were put in prison for the remainder of their lives. It would cost us, the British taxpayers, many thousands of pounds per annum, and would provide a small amount of comfort to one family. And stop the Daily Mail ranting.
Hmmm. Perhaps it would be a good idea.
Justice is about making the punishment as severe or worse than
was done to the victim (something that rarely happens in the UK
thanks to the weak minded liberals running the justice system).
Err... no. Not since some time in the 18th century has that been the case, in the UK or any other major western democracy. Justice systems exist to (a) deter crime and (b) rehabilitate offenders.
Let me guess, you're a Daily Mail reader, right?
Yes, but I wouldn't say it's "used only to install or run the Product on your other Workstation Computers over an internal network", due to the lack of a network.
What they usually mean by this is that he is the last person whose identity is known who saw her. Obviously they should be following up leads at the supermarket trying to find anyone who saw her there, etc.
If IBM could make it as stable as JFS, it would be "totally superior" to JFS.
Of course, in 99% of situations, stability is the most important requirement for filesystem.
Reiserfs and FAT: the only two filesystems I've ever had unrecoverable corruption on.
On the other hand, just ignoring the problem will drive some of those people to revenge killings - this is what happens in societies that break down, like Iraq. The government is seen as powerless or uncaring, so people take matters into their own hands...
... oh, hold on, no they're not. Must be something wrong with your logic.
And of course this is a real problem in the EU where the death sentence is illegal because of a variety of treaties. Revenge killings are commonplace and
When a tragic event like that happens to a family, most of them would lose objectivity and be filled with regret, remorse, and hatred. That's why we need sane, objective people who have the capacity to see things clearly making these kinds of decisions, instead of bitter, reactionary victims.
Well said. This is precisely why I oppose current British government moves to "put the victim's needs at the centre of the criminal justice system." The victim has no part in the criminal justice system... they're too biased.
WHAT IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE END USER LISCENSE AGREEMENT IS PERMITTED.
Err... no. EULAs don't get to forbid things. Actually, all they get to do is grant things. Copyright law forbids things:
Putting it onto a slipstreamed CD is "storing the work in [a] medium by electronic means", the work is "a computer program", so doing it is "an act restricted by copyright". At least in the EU. I understand US copyright law is fairly similar.
Is it annoying because you frequent dead hosts, or because you are running a port scanner?
And what, exactly, would be the problem if I tried to connect to every machine on my LAN to issue a command to them? Or ran a port scan over my LAN to determine if anyone was running an unauthorised server?
KB837783: Hard disk space requirements for Windows XP SP2:
So installing SP2 requires over 1.5GB of free disk space, according to MS's own information. Maybe they're wrong, but I've found it impossible to install it on my 1.9GB drive.
BTW, you say: "I slipstream SP2 into the XP install media". As far as I can tell, this process is illegal. There's nothing in the XP EULA that grants permission to make copies of the installation CD. The fact that various sources both inside & outside MS recommend it as a useful technique is besides the point: it is (at least technically) a copyright violation, and you could be sued for doing it.
As for 30 half-open TCP connections, what is the problem with that? P2P services don't rely solely on half-open connections and perform quite well under SP2 so what's the effective limit? You can't run a server on a desktop OS?
Servers don't typically need all that many half-open connections. Clients that connect to multiple servers for short-lived queries are the main problem. I run a variety of web spiders here, and find that they are substantially slower when run under SP2. As for P2P apps not having trouble with it, why do I see so many of their forums discussing patches that change the limit?
Perhaps why HP home doesn't come with IIS. Are you going to fault MS with that decision as well?
No. But if XP RTM came with IIS but SP2 deleted it, I think I'd have a right to be pissed off. And certainly I think I would have a right to not "upgrade" if I didn't think it was worth it.
Besides that it's incredibly difficult to find a machine which doesn't have enough free space for SP2 since 40gig drives were already well into the norm when XP was released.
Well, yeah... actually I'd slightly disagree, I reckon most entry level machines were being sold with either 10GB or 20GB drives at that time, but it doesn't matter: the minimum specs for XP were basically a 4 year old machine when XP was released: 64MB RAM, Pentium 233 or better, and 1.5GB hard disk. Plenty of people, I'm sure, run XP on machines that aren't a lot better than that. I can't be the only one. That's the reason those are the minimum specs, right, to tell you that if you have a machine that meets them, Windows XP is an operating system you can use on it. Except now it turns out it isn't.
How bout you try again and mention a networking application which isn't feasible which is an end-user application and not a server.
Some P2P apps (try running a gnutella client that was released before SP2 on a SP2 machine; the results will be painful). Anything that downloads web content from multiple servers in parallel and which you expect to finish quickly (e.g., applications that summarize search results). Apparently it can cause issue
Doh. Check URLs before trying to quote them from memory.
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/update/
If the OP meant distribution and support from a retail vendor, I know Novell still supports SLES 8 and SuSE 8 which were 2.4 based.
Then how come ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/update doesn't contain a subdirectory for any version older than 9.2?
How many distros that were flying high five years ago exist now, in the same state of 'repair'? Yggdrasil? Slackware?
You have a strange definition of "flying high". In 2001, Yggdrasil hadn't issued any new releases for 6 years and Slackware was all but forgotten. The popular distros of the day were Red Hat, SuSE and Debian. Not a lot different from today, really.
Here is a screenshot of my XP SP1 machine. Please point out the malware that leaves me struggling for CPU cycles.
Hard drives are not expensive.
But installing a new one may void your warranty.
and they provided that support through service packs and hotfixes, if your using sp1 you have chosen not to take them up on there support obligations and hence your on your own baby.
Due to the new features installed with SP2, its minimum hardware requirements (particularly in terms of disk space) are substantially higher than the original XP ones. That's a problem... MS were effectively promising that they would support XP running on that hardware... which included a hard disk that isn't even large enough to install SP2 if it didn't already have XP on it.
When the upgrade is included in the initial purchase cost then this is fine.
When the upgrade is not possible on computers that meet the original minimum spec for XP (1.5GB free disk space before you install; SP2 needs around 1.6GB free space to install over and above whatever your original XP install is taking), it isn't.
I shouldn't have to upgrade my hard disks (and go through the activation fiasco _again_) because MS have decided to end support early.
Name a feature addition in SP2 that's a showstopper for you.
* The limit of 30 half-open TCP connections means that using it for some networking applications is infeasible.
* The fact that it needs 1590MB of disk space on top of your XP SP1 installation in order to install means that it actually can't be installed on a machine with the original recommended minimum hard disk size for XP (1.5Gb = 1536MB total).
But carry on living in your fantasy world where everyone else has the exact same requirements and usage patterns you do.