The OP is saying that he is really confused. For some reason, he thinks that using a chemical/element in a battery eventually renders it 'used up' and that it can no longer be used in a battery (whereas in reality, it is the reversible, in place chemical reaction that has broken down, and the constituents can be processed into new batteries (usually at a lower energy cost than freshly mined materials)).
They didn't get rewarded for past greedy incompetence (many greedy individuals within those companies were clearly rewarded too much in the past, but that is a different thing).
I don't have the bandwidth to play the video, but I copied the url into VLC (on Windows) and it eventually decoded the first frame.
Not really that big a deal. Sure, it doesn't participate in directshow, but it is easy enough to play back quicktime stuff, on lots of platforms (ffmpeg doesn't always have the latest and greatest codecs, but they do a pretty good job of keeping up) .
Yes, in an election where there are 50,000 votes that are not counted correctly, making sure your vote is properly counted goes a long ways towards making sure that your vote is counted properly.
Yeah, that's why I wouldn't be in a big hurry to use such a system to authenticate identification.
It doesn't seem like it would be worth attacking the chips one at a time for something like a basketball ticket though (of course, such a system mostly protects the gate owner, people buying second hand tickets aren't going to be able to do much authentication, at least not right now). It's possible that the secret is very weak, who knows, but it is probably strong enough to protect a $50 ticket (and the consequences of failure aren't particularly dire in such a situation).
You still have the "Netflix problem", but that was related to the users publicly disclosing large amounts of information on a different site, which probably wouldn't come into play here.
I read it as being the first month of the retail release, not 30 days after a particular purchase (with the copy protection giving them some period where the easiest way to run the game is to go and buy it).
The problem is that in the interim, Bill, who runs the landfill, took Hal, who was supposed to inspect the landfill, to Tig ol' Bitties and Hal signed off on the liner, and now, all that shit has a chance to leach into someone's drinking water.
(Don't worry, I don't let the yellow mellow or any crazy nonsense like that, but there is a difference between beneficial consumption and silly, wanton consumption)
It's a bit of a trick to enforce. I just checked, and it looks like the rules in Michigan (my state) are only for lead acid batteries (with restrictions on selling batteries containing mercury).
My brother can recycle batteries at work so I just stack them up and give them to him once in a while, but I think for most people, the trash is an awfully convenient way to get rid of them.
have been found necessary to replicate all known English language poetry prose social and political literature and scientific and technical writings This includes such works foundational to the development of the postmodern age as Newtons Principia Shakespeares plays and sonnets Feynmans lectures Friedmans works on economics and so forth
I have no idea. I doubt it is a significant issue for short term things (but this goes directly to the question of how robust their technique is). Even if they can only produce tens of millions of unique keys it will be fairly useful (because finding that 1 key is going to be rather expensive compared to paying for the authentic merchandise).
The chip is characterized at the factory by sending it challenges and recording the responses. Later, the chip is issued one of the recorded challenges and the response is compared to the factory response.
If the challenge-response is done in such a way that it can be recorded, then each challenge is only good the first time it is used.
There is some possibility that the behavior they are exploiting is not as robust as they think and that the response characteristics of the chip could be determined from a limited number of challenges (and then emulated), but on the surface, it looks pretty reasonable, especially for situations with a limited number of challenges (so authenticating an event ticket with it is great, but maybe not so much an ID).
It looks like the primary purpose is to make sure that the tag you get is in fact the tag that whoever you are doing business with sent (so the tags don't help you trust your partner, but if you do trust your partner, they help you verify that you received what he sent). Once a challenge is burned (i.e., played in a public situation), as you say, it is burned, but they are still useful for authenticating the RFID.
If the PHB is not capable of understanding the why, making up something that they will believe should not be a problem.
It doesn't even have to be particularly untrue, something like "Oh, that's just marketing, they state the total amount of storage present in the device, and the computers only report the total amount of storage that they can use."
You understand the difference. It should not be a problem for you.
If you, each time you buy a new drive, hope beyond hope that your operating system will report the same capacity as the box, I have a bridge that we should talk about.
Slashdot Mirror
The OP is saying that he is really confused. For some reason, he thinks that using a chemical/element in a battery eventually renders it 'used up' and that it can no longer be used in a battery (whereas in reality, it is the reversible, in place chemical reaction that has broken down, and the constituents can be processed into new batteries (usually at a lower energy cost than freshly mined materials)).
It still isn't a good reason to not own a cell phone.
The proper response to governmental overreach is to speak out and push back, not to cower in a hole hoping that 'they' don't come for you next.
Tires+wheels?
Yum! Brands. Nobody cares about Pizza Hut.
They didn't get rewarded for past greedy incompetence (many greedy individuals within those companies were clearly rewarded too much in the past, but that is a different thing).
I don't have the bandwidth to play the video, but I copied the url into VLC (on Windows) and it eventually decoded the first frame.
Not really that big a deal. Sure, it doesn't participate in directshow, but it is easy enough to play back quicktime stuff, on lots of platforms (ffmpeg doesn't always have the latest and greatest codecs, but they do a pretty good job of keeping up) .
Yes, in an election where there are 50,000 votes that are not counted correctly, making sure your vote is properly counted goes a long ways towards making sure that your vote is counted properly.
Yeah, that's why I wouldn't be in a big hurry to use such a system to authenticate identification.
It doesn't seem like it would be worth attacking the chips one at a time for something like a basketball ticket though (of course, such a system mostly protects the gate owner, people buying second hand tickets aren't going to be able to do much authentication, at least not right now). It's possible that the secret is very weak, who knows, but it is probably strong enough to protect a $50 ticket (and the consequences of failure aren't particularly dire in such a situation).
Throw away the salt.
You still have the "Netflix problem", but that was related to the users publicly disclosing large amounts of information on a different site, which probably wouldn't come into play here.
I read it as being the first month of the retail release, not 30 days after a particular purchase (with the copy protection giving them some period where the easiest way to run the game is to go and buy it).
You did originally say "This is why I don't own a cell phone."
I'm not going to try to hold you to that or anything, but it doesn't leave a whole lot of room for fuzziness, and this is the internets.
I find it objectionable.
There is a difference between finding it objectionable and thinking that it is important not to own a cell phone.
Is this because you don't want the NSA to know that you go to KFC, or is it because you don't want the FBI to know that you don't go to Taco Bell?
Just think, every time you borrow a phone, you expose yourself to voice analysis by the NSA.
I wish I had delusions of importance. Or was actually important.
A snide remark about a dozen or so words not making for much of a reading experience would also have been appropriate.
The problem is that in the interim, Bill, who runs the landfill, took Hal, who was supposed to inspect the landfill, to Tig ol' Bitties and Hal signed off on the liner, and now, all that shit has a chance to leach into someone's drinking water.
(Don't worry, I don't let the yellow mellow or any crazy nonsense like that, but there is a difference between beneficial consumption and silly, wanton consumption)
It's a bit of a trick to enforce. I just checked, and it looks like the rules in Michigan (my state) are only for lead acid batteries (with restrictions on selling batteries containing mercury).
My brother can recycle batteries at work so I just stack them up and give them to him once in a while, but I think for most people, the trash is an awfully convenient way to get rid of them.
There is a good chance that the electron microscope wouldn't be of any help:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=957201&cid=24923625
(it all depends on if the advertised understanding of the PUF is true; if an attacker figures out an easy way to characterize the PUF, poof.)
The leap seconds do the same thing as the leap years (each leap day moves the calendar closer to the orbit, but not exactly to the orbit).
Whoops
have been found necessary to replicate all known English language poetry prose social and political literature and scientific and technical writings This includes such works foundational to the development of the postmodern age as Newtons Principia Shakespeares plays and sonnets Feynmans lectures Friedmans works on economics and so forth
Big whoop
I have no idea. I doubt it is a significant issue for short term things (but this goes directly to the question of how robust their technique is). Even if they can only produce tens of millions of unique keys it will be fairly useful (because finding that 1 key is going to be rather expensive compared to paying for the authentic merchandise).
The chip is characterized at the factory by sending it challenges and recording the responses. Later, the chip is issued one of the recorded challenges and the response is compared to the factory response.
If the challenge-response is done in such a way that it can be recorded, then each challenge is only good the first time it is used.
There is some possibility that the behavior they are exploiting is not as robust as they think and that the response characteristics of the chip could be determined from a limited number of challenges (and then emulated), but on the surface, it looks pretty reasonable, especially for situations with a limited number of challenges (so authenticating an event ticket with it is great, but maybe not so much an ID).
Working cryostatis may well require more energy than staying alive the old fashioned way.
It looks like the primary purpose is to make sure that the tag you get is in fact the tag that whoever you are doing business with sent (so the tags don't help you trust your partner, but if you do trust your partner, they help you verify that you received what he sent). Once a challenge is burned (i.e., played in a public situation), as you say, it is burned, but they are still useful for authenticating the RFID.
If the PHB is not capable of understanding the why, making up something that they will believe should not be a problem.
It doesn't even have to be particularly untrue, something like "Oh, that's just marketing, they state the total amount of storage present in the device, and the computers only report the total amount of storage that they can use."
You understand the difference. It should not be a problem for you.
If you, each time you buy a new drive, hope beyond hope that your operating system will report the same capacity as the box, I have a bridge that we should talk about.