And the odd applications that do require an installer I tend to look on with some level of suspicion. So what are you doing and why? How do I uninstall you when I decide I don't want you any more?
It depends on how friendly the developer wants to be, and what kind of installer they used. Frequently you can just delete the app, the preference file in ~/Preferences, and/Library/Application Support/appname, and that's it. The Installer is often there just to make sure things get placed in the Application Support (or whatever) folder. Few apps will hide things in weird locations. Not as nice as an effective uninstaller, of course, but knowing that there is no opaque "registry" to dig through is comforting.
TextWrangler has some method of enabling command line tools which doesn't have an equivalent disable which leaves me feeling edgy about what kind of cruft can be left behind.
Most apps that do this simply install a tool in/usr/local/bin, which you can just delete with no trouble, just like the app. There's no magic involved.
the simple, obvious fact is, no one except Apple is allowed to manufacture a machine that OS X will run on. Good or bad, that is the truth, you know it, you even said it. In what ways is this not true?
With modifications, Mac OS X will run on virtually any modern x86 PC.
What you mean to say is the reverse: they disallow running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. The point of control is the OS, not the hardware. This is a completely different thing than saying that they disallow making hardware that Mac OS X can run on.
You'll also notice many of the same strange practices as Microsoft, only moreso. Where is the option to set the default web browser? Why, it's in the Safari control panel!
It's also in the OmniWeb preferences, Firefox preferences, Camino preferences, etc. What's your point? Any app can set that preference. Safari is the only browser that ships with Mac OS X -- why wouldn't the browser preference be in the browser?
"Teachers don't freaking teach anything in class anymore." Really?
"But in the majority of classrooms, you're going to find bored students sitting quietly at little desks listening to a teacher lecture about something that the majority of the class doesn't care about and will probably not use." -- You, in October
I work in the public school system. I'm in schools every day. Are you? No? Then shut the f*ck up.
When were you last a student in the public school system, though? Don't discount what he's saying just because you haven't been on that side in a long time.
How about we wipe their tushies and tell them they won't have to work hard to make something of themselves?
That's pretty much what public schools teach today anyway, but not for the reasons you think. Today, the rule is that success comes to those who are smartest, not those who work hard. If you have to work hard, it's supposedly a sign that you are to stupid to just "get it", and will probably never "get it". This encourages otherwise bright students to direct their efforts towards seeming smart, regardless of the work they do. Look at the prevalence of so-called "gifted" programs, which reward students for being "special", not for hard work. If you look at the results of the system this is evident: lazy yet success-oriented people that believe they are innately talented. They may look great on a college application, but they don't know anything.
Contrast this with Japan where success is highly correlated with hard work, and failures are generally considered failures of effort. Secondary school isn't even mandatory there, and yet the overwhelming majority attend, with many attending cram schools at the same time. As far as I know, they don't have "gifted" programs at all.
Note that both of these systems work the way they do independently of the amount of work handed out -- it's the reward system that makes them what they are.
Why does it seem that the USA is progressively skimping on education?
The largest reason in recent years is the vast amounts of the education budget is spent on standardized testing which doesn't actually have anything to do with education. The whole thing goes meta when you consider that school districts are judged on these test scores, giving them an incentive to inflate them by any means necessary, instead of ensuring that students actually learn anything.
"Wales has been a passionate adherent of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. When asked by Brian Lamb in his appearance on C-SPAN's Q&A about Rand, Wales cited "the virtue of independence" as important to him personally. When asked if he could trace "the Ayn Rand connection" to having a political philosophy at the time of the interview, Wales reluctantly labeled himself a libertarian, qualifying his remark by referring to the Libertarian Party as "lunatics" and citing "freedom, liberty, basically individual rights, that idea of dealing with other people in a matter that is not initiating force against them" as his guiding principles.[5] From 1992 to 1996, he ran the electronic mailing list "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy".[34]" -- Jimbo Wales @ Wikipedia
If you're looking for a good laugh, I would recommend reading some of the responses in that forum thread. People are still running the keygen in hope of getting a valid key, reasoning "its not that its fake.. its just taht you never actually put thought into the logic." and "you look at the invalid keys it produces and check why its invalid so you can come up with a mathimatical equsion to compute valid keys.. "
Warning: Extreme Tolerance for Poor Spelling Required
I'm still waiting for a demo of this phantom exploit on a Windows machine:
"Maynor said the two have found at least two similar flaws in device drivers for wireless cards either designed for or embedded in machines running the Windows OS. Still, the presenters said they ultimately decided to run the demo against a Mac due to what Maynor called the "Mac user base aura of smugness on security."
"We're not picking specifically on Macs here, but if you watch those 'Get a Mac' commercials enough, it eventually makes you want to stab one of those users in the eye with a lit cigarette or something," Maynor said." -- Hijacking a Macbook in 60 Seconds or Less
Actually, what I'm really waiting for is for Maynor to stop opening his mouth.
Sure, I own the encrypted data on the disc. But that's just a mechanical translation of the movie, and the same copyright covers both. Thus, if I own one, I own the other.
If you're claiming to hold the copyright on a movie just because you bought a copy of it on HD-DVD, you're out of your gourd. And it sure sounds like you're saying that.
I think the DSM, as the basis of diagnosis is illustrative of the problem I was talking about. It's accurate in proportion to the skill of the observer; the most objective criteria tend to be the least indicative, and the most indicative are most subjective. The latter especially means that they can easily be denied, ignored, or even faked by a patient, and easily overlooked by family and friends.
It's not really a knock against the DSM as a lamentation that our diagnostic tools for psychological problems so much less reliable than those in general medicine.
Toshiba sell me an HD-DVD player, they sell me a tool to do the decryption with and a key, although a bit hidden.
If you've gotten keys out of a hardware player, you'd be one up on the folks over at Doom9. Maybe I'm not up to date, but I'm pretty sure nobody's managed to do so. (If anybody's got a link that says otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.) The volume keys retrieved to date (almost) all come from memory dumps of InterVideo WinDVD.
You do own the content. You merely lack the copying rights to make a duplicate of it legitimately. Seriously, space/media-shifting and backup allowances clearly show that you own the content, not just the plastic disc or paper book.
Let's clarify the term content here. You're talking about the encrypted bits on the disc. I'm talking about the movie that is encrypted. To simply make a backup, you don't need a decryption tool at all.
Actually, I own the disc, AND I own a copy of the contents, which I can use in any way not restricted by copyright. [and several restatements of the same]
The contents of the disc are a bunch of encrypted bits. Yes, you can do whatever you want with those encrypted bits, a point that I try to make as often as possible. Also, I've never heard of the MPAA going after anyone for making a copy of those bits. For instance, you don't need to decrypt them in order to make a "backup for archival purposes", which is permitted under the law.
I'll say that again, because nobody ever seems to read it: You do not need to decrypt the contents to make a legal archival copy.
You're the one who was talking about shitting in someones house.
I was responding to the poster's idea that because he didn't sign an agreement saying he wouldn't, that meant he could. You were making a completely different analogy, which happened to be wrong as well.
Do you even know what the DMCA is? Have you read it?
Yes, and yes. Why, were you trying to say something about the DMCA? It sure didn't sound like it. Oh, and by the way, AES is not broken.
If nothing else, an objective test would be useful in convincing potential patients ( and those who care about them ) that the potential patient has depression
Indeed, this is one of the major problems with all mental disorders. It results in a combination of over-diagnosis by incompetent or greedy doctors, self-diagnosis by internet hypochondriacs, parents that want "stable" children, and legitimately ill people that are told to "snap out of it" by family and friends. In all it makes a mess of the mental health field that would be greatly mitigated by the ability to make more objective assessments.
What makes you think that your vaguely described experience ("drop out from the psych world" means what?) and your acknowledged absence from the field for decades gives you any sort of authority?
Yeah, but if I buy a bottle of coke I don't see any reason I shouldn't piss in it.
Uh...ok. I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying, but it looks like a flawed analogy about something else entirely. In the case of a bottle of Coke, that's your property. In the case of encrypted content on a HD-DVD disc, it is not. You own the disc, not the content.
And what's more, if you sell me a sheet of paper with a code on it and then get pissed when I break it...
This has nothing to do with breaking a cipher. AES is not broken.
you're going to have to start prosecuting all us folks who do the crypto-quote in the newspapers. That's illegal, too.
Reading some bytes from memory is not an illegal act.
That's also not how most people obtain their keys. It also has little to do with this story or the post I was replying to.
Maybe you should go read the Doom9 boards and see how this was all done [..]
How what was all done? A few people actually do the work and then everyone else just looks up the keys ( Post HD DVD Volume Unique Keys here) for "backup purposes". And that was the old way. More recent versions automatically download the keys from the web. (For what it's worth, this functionality is probably what triggered the DMCA notice.)
[..] rather than assuming some terrible illegal omgHAx0r stuff was happening.
Did I say "terrible illegal omgHAx0r stuff"? No. My point is that it's a DMCA violation, and hence, illicit. Like it or not, that's why the DMCA exists.
I signed nothing at the time of purchase promising to watch it only with players they approve of.
I assume you've also never signed anything that says you won't break into houses and crap on the floor. That doesn't mean you have a right to do it. I don't understand why so many people think that their rights are defined only by what they agree to on paper.
By all logic, they HAVE given me permission to decrypt it.
To do so you have to be privy to secret information (i.e. keys). To obtain these you must be an AACS LA licensee, or obtain them illicitly. To simply watch the movie on a licensed device you don't need either. While you could contort this into meaning they've given you permission to decrypt it, they've not given you the right to obtain the keys you would need to do so.
I'm a Charter customer/victim, and the first thing I did upon discovering the new "feature" was disable it. Of course, it's not that easy. Disabling Charter's site-finder bullshit just replaces it with Microsoft's site-finder bullshit, because that's Internet Explorer's default, and apparently they thought that nobody would notice. I notice because I'm using Safari on a Mac, and Windows Live search sure as hell isn't the default behavior for me. "Disable" is supposed to mean "stop doing that", not "do it differently and pretend you've stopped."
The way I see it, if they want to intercept any of my failed DNS queries, they can have them. All of them:
There is at least some content on the iTunes store that need not have the DRM (ie various independent label works), yet it all does
There is at least some content on the iTunes store that need not be in 128kbps AAC and cost $0.99 per track, yet it all does. It all stems from the fact that Apple gives one deal to all the independent labels, no negotiation.
Also consider that any label that doesn't want to use DRM can either stop selling at iTunes (an often ignored option) or sell DRM-free elsewhere.
And this is purely and simply the fault of the internet companies' false advertising
ISPs rarely, if ever, guarantee available bandwidth or latency. If they do, it is an exception to their normal service, like having a static IP address.
It's very simple: if you cannot provide what you are offering, do not offer it.
If they did only sell only what they could guarantee, you'd likely be capped at something like 100kbps, regardless of how much bandwidth is available at any given time. What is the advantage of having dramatically poorer service and extreme inefficiency?
Slashdot Mirror
And the odd applications that do require an installer I tend to look on with some level of suspicion. So what are you doing and why? How do I uninstall you when I decide I don't want you any more?
/Library/Application Support/appname, and that's it. The Installer is often there just to make sure things get placed in the Application Support (or whatever) folder. Few apps will hide things in weird locations. Not as nice as an effective uninstaller, of course, but knowing that there is no opaque "registry" to dig through is comforting.
/usr/local/bin, which you can just delete with no trouble, just like the app. There's no magic involved.
It depends on how friendly the developer wants to be, and what kind of installer they used. Frequently you can just delete the app, the preference file in ~/Preferences, and
TextWrangler has some method of enabling command line tools which doesn't have an equivalent disable which leaves me feeling edgy about what kind of cruft can be left behind.
Most apps that do this simply install a tool in
the simple, obvious fact is, no one except Apple is allowed to manufacture a machine that OS X will run on. Good or bad, that is the truth, you know it, you even said it. In what ways is this not true?
With modifications, Mac OS X will run on virtually any modern x86 PC.
What you mean to say is the reverse: they disallow running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. The point of control is the OS, not the hardware. This is a completely different thing than saying that they disallow making hardware that Mac OS X can run on.
You'll also notice many of the same strange practices as Microsoft, only moreso. Where is the option to set the default web browser? Why, it's in the Safari control panel!
It's also in the OmniWeb preferences, Firefox preferences, Camino preferences, etc. What's your point? Any app can set that preference. Safari is the only browser that ships with Mac OS X -- why wouldn't the browser preference be in the browser?
"Teachers don't freaking teach anything in class anymore." Really?
"But in the majority of classrooms, you're going to find bored students sitting quietly at little desks listening to a teacher lecture about something that the majority of the class doesn't care about and will probably not use." -- You, in October
I work in the public school system. I'm in schools every day. Are you? No? Then shut the f*ck up.
When were you last a student in the public school system, though? Don't discount what he's saying just because you haven't been on that side in a long time.
How about we wipe their tushies and tell them they won't have to work hard to make something of themselves?
That's pretty much what public schools teach today anyway, but not for the reasons you think. Today, the rule is that success comes to those who are smartest, not those who work hard. If you have to work hard, it's supposedly a sign that you are to stupid to just "get it", and will probably never "get it". This encourages otherwise bright students to direct their efforts towards seeming smart, regardless of the work they do. Look at the prevalence of so-called "gifted" programs, which reward students for being "special", not for hard work. If you look at the results of the system this is evident: lazy yet success-oriented people that believe they are innately talented. They may look great on a college application, but they don't know anything.
Contrast this with Japan where success is highly correlated with hard work, and failures are generally considered failures of effort. Secondary school isn't even mandatory there, and yet the overwhelming majority attend, with many attending cram schools at the same time. As far as I know, they don't have "gifted" programs at all.
Note that both of these systems work the way they do independently of the amount of work handed out -- it's the reward system that makes them what they are.
Why does it seem that the USA is progressively skimping on education?
The largest reason in recent years is the vast amounts of the education budget is spent on standardized testing which doesn't actually have anything to do with education. The whole thing goes meta when you consider that school districts are judged on these test scores, giving them an incentive to inflate them by any means necessary, instead of ensuring that students actually learn anything.
when did Jimbo claim to be objectivist?
"Wales has been a passionate adherent of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. When asked by Brian Lamb in his appearance on C-SPAN's Q&A about Rand, Wales cited "the virtue of independence" as important to him personally. When asked if he could trace "the Ayn Rand connection" to having a political philosophy at the time of the interview, Wales reluctantly labeled himself a libertarian, qualifying his remark by referring to the Libertarian Party as "lunatics" and citing "freedom, liberty, basically individual rights, that idea of dealing with other people in a matter that is not initiating force against them" as his guiding principles.[5] From 1992 to 1996, he ran the electronic mailing list "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy".[34]" -- Jimbo Wales @ Wikipedia
If you're looking for a good laugh, I would recommend reading some of the responses in that forum thread. People are still running the keygen in hope of getting a valid key, reasoning "its not that its fake.. its just taht you never actually put thought into the logic." and "you look at the invalid keys it produces and check why its invalid so you can come up with a mathimatical equsion to compute valid keys.. "
Warning: Extreme Tolerance for Poor Spelling Required
I'm still waiting for a demo of this phantom exploit on a Windows machine:
"Maynor said the two have found at least two similar flaws in device drivers for wireless cards either designed for or embedded in machines running the Windows OS. Still, the presenters said they ultimately decided to run the demo against a Mac due to what Maynor called the "Mac user base aura of smugness on security."
"We're not picking specifically on Macs here, but if you watch those 'Get a Mac' commercials enough, it eventually makes you want to stab one of those users in the eye with a lit cigarette or something," Maynor said." -- Hijacking a Macbook in 60 Seconds or Less
Actually, what I'm really waiting for is for Maynor to stop opening his mouth.
Sure, I own the encrypted data on the disc. But that's just a mechanical translation of the movie, and the same copyright covers both. Thus, if I own one, I own the other.
If you're claiming to hold the copyright on a movie just because you bought a copy of it on HD-DVD, you're out of your gourd. And it sure sounds like you're saying that.
Here are the DSM IV criteria...
:(
Oh, I'm quite familiar with them
I think the DSM, as the basis of diagnosis is illustrative of the problem I was talking about. It's accurate in proportion to the skill of the observer; the most objective criteria tend to be the least indicative, and the most indicative are most subjective. The latter especially means that they can easily be denied, ignored, or even faked by a patient, and easily overlooked by family and friends.
It's not really a knock against the DSM as a lamentation that our diagnostic tools for psychological problems so much less reliable than those in general medicine.
Toshiba sell me an HD-DVD player, they sell me a tool to do the decryption with and a key, although a bit hidden.
If you've gotten keys out of a hardware player, you'd be one up on the folks over at Doom9. Maybe I'm not up to date, but I'm pretty sure nobody's managed to do so. (If anybody's got a link that says otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.) The volume keys retrieved to date (almost) all come from memory dumps of InterVideo WinDVD.
You do own the content. You merely lack the copying rights to make a duplicate of it legitimately. Seriously, space/media-shifting and backup allowances clearly show that you own the content, not just the plastic disc or paper book.
Let's clarify the term content here. You're talking about the encrypted bits on the disc. I'm talking about the movie that is encrypted. To simply make a backup, you don't need a decryption tool at all.
...my DVD player that I bought...my TV that I bought...the DVDs that I bought...that my work bought.
Its nonsense. And I'm sick of having to deal with it.
You could stop buying it.
Actually, I own the disc, AND I own a copy of the contents, which I can use in any way not restricted by copyright. [and several restatements of the same]
The contents of the disc are a bunch of encrypted bits. Yes, you can do whatever you want with those encrypted bits, a point that I try to make as often as possible. Also, I've never heard of the MPAA going after anyone for making a copy of those bits. For instance, you don't need to decrypt them in order to make a "backup for archival purposes", which is permitted under the law.
I'll say that again, because nobody ever seems to read it: You do not need to decrypt the contents to make a legal archival copy.
You're the one who was talking about shitting in someones house.
I was responding to the poster's idea that because he didn't sign an agreement saying he wouldn't, that meant he could. You were making a completely different analogy, which happened to be wrong as well.
Do you even know what the DMCA is? Have you read it?
Yes, and yes. Why, were you trying to say something about the DMCA? It sure didn't sound like it. Oh, and by the way, AES is not broken.
If nothing else, an objective test would be useful in convincing potential patients ( and those who care about them ) that the potential patient has depression
Indeed, this is one of the major problems with all mental disorders. It results in a combination of over-diagnosis by incompetent or greedy doctors, self-diagnosis by internet hypochondriacs, parents that want "stable" children, and legitimately ill people that are told to "snap out of it" by family and friends. In all it makes a mess of the mental health field that would be greatly mitigated by the ability to make more objective assessments.
What makes you think that your vaguely described experience ("drop out from the psych world" means what?) and your acknowledged absence from the field for decades gives you any sort of authority?
Yeah, but if I buy a bottle of coke I don't see any reason I shouldn't piss in it.
Uh...ok. I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying, but it looks like a flawed analogy about something else entirely. In the case of a bottle of Coke, that's your property. In the case of encrypted content on a HD-DVD disc, it is not. You own the disc, not the content.
And what's more, if you sell me a sheet of paper with a code on it and then get pissed when I break it...
This has nothing to do with breaking a cipher. AES is not broken.
you're going to have to start prosecuting all us folks who do the crypto-quote in the newspapers. That's illegal, too.
Asinine.
Reading some bytes from memory is not an illegal act.
That's also not how most people obtain their keys. It also has little to do with this story or the post I was replying to.
Maybe you should go read the Doom9 boards and see how this was all done [..]
How what was all done? A few people actually do the work and then everyone else just looks up the keys ( Post HD DVD Volume Unique Keys here) for "backup purposes". And that was the old way. More recent versions automatically download the keys from the web. (For what it's worth, this functionality is probably what triggered the DMCA notice.)
[..] rather than assuming some terrible illegal omgHAx0r stuff was happening.
Did I say "terrible illegal omgHAx0r stuff"? No. My point is that it's a DMCA violation, and hence, illicit. Like it or not, that's why the DMCA exists.
I signed nothing at the time of purchase promising to watch it only with players they approve of.
I assume you've also never signed anything that says you won't break into houses and crap on the floor. That doesn't mean you have a right to do it. I don't understand why so many people think that their rights are defined only by what they agree to on paper.
By all logic, they HAVE given me permission to decrypt it.
To do so you have to be privy to secret information (i.e. keys). To obtain these you must be an AACS LA licensee, or obtain them illicitly. To simply watch the movie on a licensed device you don't need either. While you could contort this into meaning they've given you permission to decrypt it, they've not given you the right to obtain the keys you would need to do so.
I'm a Charter customer/victim, and the first thing I did upon discovering the new "feature" was disable it. Of course, it's not that easy. Disabling Charter's site-finder bullshit just replaces it with Microsoft's site-finder bullshit, because that's Internet Explorer's default, and apparently they thought that nobody would notice. I notice because I'm using Safari on a Mac, and Windows Live search sure as hell isn't the default behavior for me. "Disable" is supposed to mean "stop doing that", not "do it differently and pretend you've stopped."
k tards
The way I see it, if they want to intercept any of my failed DNS queries, they can have them. All of them:
sudo ping -f charter.please.stop.breaking.the.internet.you.coc
So, whats with this fixed battery?
Most people don't travel to places where they don't have access to power outlets.
There is at least some content on the iTunes store that need not have the DRM (ie various independent label works), yet it all does
There is at least some content on the iTunes store that need not be in 128kbps AAC and cost $0.99 per track, yet it all does. It all stems from the fact that Apple gives one deal to all the independent labels, no negotiation.
Also consider that any label that doesn't want to use DRM can either stop selling at iTunes (an often ignored option) or sell DRM-free elsewhere.
And this is purely and simply the fault of the internet companies' false advertising
ISPs rarely, if ever, guarantee available bandwidth or latency. If they do, it is an exception to their normal service, like having a static IP address.
It's very simple: if you cannot provide what you are offering, do not offer it.
If they did only sell only what they could guarantee, you'd likely be capped at something like 100kbps, regardless of how much bandwidth is available at any given time. What is the advantage of having dramatically poorer service and extreme inefficiency?
"enforced" only by a customized copy that can be traced back to me if it gets spread around the world.
This would not be possible without some sort of DRM.