Wikipedia is Working as Intended(tm) - someone posts a bullshit viral marketing article, and it gets edited to be a proper article about the game.
Anyone can put bullshit to Wikipedia. Anyone can edit said bullshit. Anyone repeatedly abusing their ability to post or edit will see their ability to do so removed - by their peers. Ultimate peer review system. End result is usually positive - like in this case.
It's pointless to get worked over a 'bogus' Wikipedia entry. Wait 48 hours and look at it again, and most likely the wheels have turned and it's either nuked or edited.
You need to be a large organization, and threaten to move to OSS (or have already done so).
Then you get a killer deal - for a few years. Let's see 3 years from now what the yearly cost is after that. Maybe 200$/seat. Or more. But hey, at that point people calculate that moving (back) to OSS is (slightly) more expensive than paying MS again for another contract.
Free/cheap samples or initial contracts are nice way to milk a customer to max later on. MS can think long-term - they are willing to dump some short-term profits for long term wins. They'll milk the difference back over the next 10-15 years - probably several times over.
Most titles were CDs because the game fitted onto one, but there were DVD games. Kessen comes to mind, and I'm quite sure there was one or two others at launch (or very soon after it).
Maybe because back then everyone thought they were dead as a doorknob - the damn service module blew (well, a nice chunk of it).
Nobody is saying Shuttle is toast. This is mostly about an unexpected chance to test theoretical plans to fix shuttles in orbit. It's almost certain that the current problem would not prevent safe return.
I'm quite sure we'd get 24/7 coverage of the shuttle if they'd have a suitcase-sized hole in the wing right now, and either trying desperately to fix it, or planning that rescue launch with another shuttle.
So? You need admin rights to patch the system anyway...
Now requiring admin rights for authenthication just to download additional software is bit more so-so, but even then you probably need admin rights to install them, so the problem is not that big.
Windows is broken in this regard that you pretty much need to run on admin rights to do anything with it:)
Situations like damaged HD or total spyware infestation... when the drive is not encrypted, it's usually trivial to rescue most/all of the important data.
If it's encrypted, things get way more difficult...
Well, after some research it looks like one may be able to get into the OS via off-CD hacking tools, but all the encrypted user data is inaccessible.
" *
This is a utility to (re)set the password of any user that has a valid (local) account on your Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 system, by modifying the encrypted password in the registry's SAM file.
*
You do not need to know the old password to set a new one.
*
It works offline, that is, you have to shutdown your computer and boot off a floppy disk or CD. The boot-disk includes stuff to access NTFS partitions and scripts to glue the whole thing together.
*
Works with syskey (no need to turn it off, but you can if you have lost the key)
*
Will detect and offer to unlock locked or disabled out user accounts!
Caution: If used on users that have EFS encrypted files, and the system is XP or later service packs on W2K, all encrypted files for that user will be UNREADABLE! and cannot be recovered unless you remember the old password again!"
So, in such cases even if you could get somekinda OS up with access to it, the encrypted stuff would still be inaccessible.
I still state that if the filesystem is ENCRYPTED, there is no way to access it. Unencrypted = no problem, plenty of bootable tools off CD that can 0wn the admin password (or insert few new admins). But if its' encrypted, its encrypted, and assuming no known users/passwords, even with local access you can't touch the data.
If you somehow can, please do educate me - I run into this issue at my work every few months (borked un-bootable windows on encrypted drive), and currently my answer in such case is "sucks to be you, learn what 'encrypted' means, and how you securely backup your encryption keys before using it again". And then the user gets to reformat without recovering any files.
Assume I have a system with one 40GB HD, containing one 40GB NTFS partition that is encrypted. I have no usernames nor passwords on hand.
How do I get (local) admin, assuming I have physical access to the computer? How about if I can't just pluck out the HDD and move it to another computer?
I know many tools to crack open admin access to an unencrypted Windows installation, but I have no idea how to do the same to an encrypted disk.
30fps = unplayable in my opinion. So you are one of those who hop to pilot a chopper, then yell 'lag' when they crash it.
1600x1200 at 60fps+ solid at all times = playable (well, that's the native res of my TFT). You can actually make out details from range and *aim* instead of shooting at blobs of pixels.
That 'new harry potter PDF' three weeks ago was a crappy fake made by some obsessive fan.
The real is of course out now, but it wasn't prior to release date (had it been, it would've been all over the news, and the paid congresscritters would already be drafting new laws to protect old ladies that make $30M+ in a day in book sales)
Had DRM allowed said copy, without strings attached, he could've made unlimited copies. It didn't - it got in the way.
They issue a new license key? Then he has two license keys and has just made a copy. What prevents him from giving that copy to another person, effectively 'making a warez copy'? What prevents him from giving said license key to 100 friends with 100 copies of the data, unlockable by the license key?
Also, the law doesn't say you can only make X number of private copies under fair use, or that you can only access or copy the data if you allow your system to 'call home' and verify your license. So any DRM cuts down your rights, and any DRM is fundamentally breakable - if you can read the data, you can copy the data.
Problem is, to prevent unauthorized users from accessing the data, you need to prevent huge number of scenarios where you access the data - many of them quite legal.
The only difference between 'making a warez copy of the data to be distributed for all mankind' and 'making a backup copy in case the original dies' is *intent*. And no DRM can dechiper that.
There is no way to 'secure' identification of an 'authorized user' to 'unlock' data. Once an authorized user unlocks it legimately, he can make copies (or if he can't, then DRM is in the way).
I dunno.. for decades we had this analog rights management system called 'the Copyright Law' that ensured that 'talented individuals' got their 'appropriate compensation'. Content business was huge before the term DRM was even invented, so additional protection seems pointless. Now if your business model cannot survive unlimited digital copying, maybe it's time to rethink the business model? Because you cannot possibly prevent it - once you have a digital copy, and you allow an user to access said digital copy, it's possible to make a perfect digital copy of it. It's so fundamental that any DRM is doomed to fail, and on the way there it will piss off paying customers that just wish to legally access the data they paid for.
They are indistingusihable, because the only difference is the intent.
Are you making a copy to be used on another piece of hardware you own, or for someone else (who pays you for the copy, for the sake of argument, making it definitely illegal)? Show me an automated DRM that can make a distinction between the two, without employing a human spying on your actions?
Computer programs cannot determine the intent of the user, and neither can the rightsholder without seriously breaching little things like 'right to privacy'. So DRM is a fundamentally flawed concept that will always be designed to restrict fair use and normal legal use - because that's the only way to prevent potential 'evil' uses where your intent is to make illegal copies. The only difference being the intent of the user.
Hey, even supreme court got the idea (with their P2P ruling) - intent is everything in these things.
Restricting the copying of data is comparable to trying to make water not wet.
It's so fundamental stuff. Data. Bits. Ones and zeroes. In order for computer to process and display the data, it will have to make copies of it. When copies are made, unlimited copies can be made.
Making DRM that allows you to do what you are allowed to do by law would require said DRM to be able to know what your intent is when you are copying. I haven't seen an AI in any of the DRM implementations, and I don't think it's feasible. Any rule-based restrictions will get in your way sooner or later (and they can be broken since computers fundamentally copy data all the time).
Only DRM that I can see working while allowing you to excercise your fair use rights would involve a DMCA laywer standing next to you 24/7, and saying 'bad user, you will be sued' when you cross the line - because law is based on *intent* of the person doing the copying, there is no way to automate the process of preventing only 'evil' copying.
Fair use basically says 'you can make unlimited copies for private use, as long as you don't distribute them, and keep the original'. As soon as you can do that, you can go on a warezing spree.
DRM blocks that. So it gets in the way of your fair use rights. 'Effective' DRM gets in the way in so ugly ways that even normal allowed use is usually hampered to the point that people start looking for cracking tools.
Ah, but our jolly DMCA makes you a criminal at that point. Ain't it grand in the 'land of the free'.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are people overreacting?
Wikipedia is Working as Intended(tm) - someone posts a bullshit viral marketing article, and it gets edited to be a proper article about the game.
Anyone can put bullshit to Wikipedia. Anyone can edit said bullshit. Anyone repeatedly abusing their ability to post or edit will see their ability to do so removed - by their peers. Ultimate peer review system. End result is usually positive - like in this case.
It's pointless to get worked over a 'bogus' Wikipedia entry. Wait 48 hours and look at it again, and most likely the wheels have turned and it's either nuked or edited.
You need to be a large organization, and threaten to move to OSS (or have already done so).
Then you get a killer deal - for a few years. Let's see 3 years from now what the yearly cost is after that. Maybe 200$/seat. Or more. But hey, at that point people calculate that moving (back) to OSS is (slightly) more expensive than paying MS again for another contract.
Free/cheap samples or initial contracts are nice way to milk a customer to max later on. MS can think long-term - they are willing to dump some short-term profits for long term wins. They'll milk the difference back over the next 10-15 years - probably several times over.
No.
Most titles were CDs because the game fitted onto one, but there were DVD games. Kessen comes to mind, and I'm quite sure there was one or two others at launch (or very soon after it).
Maybe because back then everyone thought they were dead as a doorknob - the damn service module blew (well, a nice chunk of it).
Nobody is saying Shuttle is toast. This is mostly about an unexpected chance to test theoretical plans to fix shuttles in orbit. It's almost certain that the current problem would not prevent safe return.
I'm quite sure we'd get 24/7 coverage of the shuttle if they'd have a suitcase-sized hole in the wing right now, and either trying desperately to fix it, or planning that rescue launch with another shuttle.
Which are single layer. They just counted that it's cheaper to manufacture two single layer discs than one dual layer disc.
It's due to greed by the manufacturer, not 'too much content for one DVD'.
So? You need admin rights to patch the system anyway...
:)
Now requiring admin rights for authenthication just to download additional software is bit more so-so, but even then you probably need admin rights to install them, so the problem is not that big.
Windows is broken in this regard that you pretty much need to run on admin rights to do anything with it
Situations like damaged HD or total spyware infestation... when the drive is not encrypted, it's usually trivial to rescue most/all of the important data.
If it's encrypted, things get way more difficult...
Well, after some research it looks like one may be able to get into the OS via off-CD hacking tools, but all the encrypted user data is inaccessible.
" *
This is a utility to (re)set the password of any user that has a valid (local) account on your Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 system, by modifying the encrypted password in the registry's SAM file.
*
You do not need to know the old password to set a new one.
*
It works offline, that is, you have to shutdown your computer and boot off a floppy disk or CD. The boot-disk includes stuff to access NTFS partitions and scripts to glue the whole thing together.
*
Works with syskey (no need to turn it off, but you can if you have lost the key)
*
Will detect and offer to unlock locked or disabled out user accounts!
Caution: If used on users that have EFS encrypted files, and the system is XP or later service packs on W2K, all encrypted files for that user will be UNREADABLE! and cannot be recovered unless you remember the old password again!"
So, in such cases even if you could get somekinda OS up with access to it, the encrypted stuff would still be inaccessible.
You cant run syskey without access.
I still state that if the filesystem is ENCRYPTED, there is no way to access it. Unencrypted = no problem, plenty of bootable tools off CD that can 0wn the admin password (or insert few new admins). But if its' encrypted, its encrypted, and assuming no known users/passwords, even with local access you can't touch the data.
If you somehow can, please do educate me - I run into this issue at my work every few months (borked un-bootable windows on encrypted drive), and currently my answer in such case is "sucks to be you, learn what 'encrypted' means, and how you securely backup your encryption keys before using it again". And then the user gets to reformat without recovering any files.
Please educate me.
Assume I have a system with one 40GB HD, containing one 40GB NTFS partition that is encrypted. I have no usernames nor passwords on hand.
How do I get (local) admin, assuming I have physical access to the computer? How about if I can't just pluck out the HDD and move it to another computer?
I know many tools to crack open admin access to an unencrypted Windows installation, but I have no idea how to do the same to an encrypted disk.
Actually, every motherboard BIOS I've seen have the option to disable USB.
:)
And to just disable the 'front panel' easy access USBs, just yank the cables out of the motherboard
Correct. If NTFS is unencrypted, the computer is easy to compromise - you can just boot from a tool CD and modify/insert usernames/passwords.
However, if the system partition is actually encrypted, there is very little you can do without NSA-grade bruteforcing.
And I have a great time on my Athlon64 3500+, 2GB, X850XT PCIe. Runs smooth at 1600x1200 with everything maxed out.
:)
As far as your system... well, my secondary web browsing computer is faster (2.67Ghz P4, 1GB RAM, 9800pro - leftover parts from last upgrade)
30fps = unplayable in my opinion. So you are one of those who hop to pilot a chopper, then yell 'lag' when they crash it.
1600x1200 at 60fps+ solid at all times = playable (well, that's the native res of my TFT). You can actually make out details from range and *aim* instead of shooting at blobs of pixels.
They are definitely not the same as BF1942.
And if you don't see problems with an 1.2Ghz CPU, you are running it at 640x480, or enjoy your games at 10fps.
'a rather big data set'. You, sir, are a master of understatement...
That 'new harry potter PDF' three weeks ago was a crappy fake made by some obsessive fan.
The real is of course out now, but it wasn't prior to release date (had it been, it would've been all over the news, and the paid congresscritters would already be drafting new laws to protect old ladies that make $30M+ in a day in book sales)
Fun sidenote:
The page was stealth-changed. He no longer neither names nor links to the program in question.
Considering DMCA braindeadness, that is a wise move. What's sad is that there is no commentary on how the law is utterly stupid in this regard.
"This enables me to do things like, for example, prepare a confidential document, send it to someone, and have it NOT be copyable."
What you describe is fundamentally impossible to do.
You can wrap it with ten tons of DRM Snake oil, but if the recipient can read it, it can be copied. Accessing = copying.
He wanted to make a copy that DRM prevented.
Had DRM allowed said copy, without strings attached, he could've made unlimited copies. It didn't - it got in the way.
They issue a new license key? Then he has two license keys and has just made a copy. What prevents him from giving that copy to another person, effectively 'making a warez copy'? What prevents him from giving said license key to 100 friends with 100 copies of the data, unlockable by the license key?
Also, the law doesn't say you can only make X number of private copies under fair use, or that you can only access or copy the data if you allow your system to 'call home' and verify your license. So any DRM cuts down your rights, and any DRM is fundamentally breakable - if you can read the data, you can copy the data.
Hey, I understand that.
Problem is, to prevent unauthorized users from accessing the data, you need to prevent huge number of scenarios where you access the data - many of them quite legal.
The only difference between 'making a warez copy of the data to be distributed for all mankind' and 'making a backup copy in case the original dies' is *intent*. And no DRM can dechiper that.
There is no way to 'secure' identification of an 'authorized user' to 'unlock' data. Once an authorized user unlocks it legimately, he can make copies (or if he can't, then DRM is in the way).
I dunno.. for decades we had this analog rights management system called 'the Copyright Law' that ensured that 'talented individuals' got their 'appropriate compensation'. Content business was huge before the term DRM was even invented, so additional protection seems pointless. Now if your business model cannot survive unlimited digital copying, maybe it's time to rethink the business model? Because you cannot possibly prevent it - once you have a digital copy, and you allow an user to access said digital copy, it's possible to make a perfect digital copy of it. It's so fundamental that any DRM is doomed to fail, and on the way there it will piss off paying customers that just wish to legally access the data they paid for.
They are indistingusihable, because the only difference is the intent.
Are you making a copy to be used on another piece of hardware you own, or for someone else (who pays you for the copy, for the sake of argument, making it definitely illegal)? Show me an automated DRM that can make a distinction between the two, without employing a human spying on your actions?
Computer programs cannot determine the intent of the user, and neither can the rightsholder without seriously breaching little things like 'right to privacy'. So DRM is a fundamentally flawed concept that will always be designed to restrict fair use and normal legal use - because that's the only way to prevent potential 'evil' uses where your intent is to make illegal copies. The only difference being the intent of the user.
Hey, even supreme court got the idea (with their P2P ruling) - intent is everything in these things.
No can do.
Restricting the copying of data is comparable to trying to make water not wet.
It's so fundamental stuff. Data. Bits. Ones and zeroes. In order for computer to process and display the data, it will have to make copies of it. When copies are made, unlimited copies can be made.
Making DRM that allows you to do what you are allowed to do by law would require said DRM to be able to know what your intent is when you are copying. I haven't seen an AI in any of the DRM implementations, and I don't think it's feasible. Any rule-based restrictions will get in your way sooner or later (and they can be broken since computers fundamentally copy data all the time).
Only DRM that I can see working while allowing you to excercise your fair use rights would involve a DMCA laywer standing next to you 24/7, and saying 'bad user, you will be sued' when you cross the line - because law is based on *intent* of the person doing the copying, there is no way to automate the process of preventing only 'evil' copying.
But as soon as you can do that, you can do that infinite number of times, basically warezing the thing and making the DRM pointless.
So DRM blocked his legal actions.
It's fundamentally impossible.
Fair use basically says 'you can make unlimited copies for private use, as long as you don't distribute them, and keep the original'. As soon as you can do that, you can go on a warezing spree.
DRM blocks that. So it gets in the way of your fair use rights. 'Effective' DRM gets in the way in so ugly ways that even normal allowed use is usually hampered to the point that people start looking for cracking tools.
Ah, but our jolly DMCA makes you a criminal at that point. Ain't it grand in the 'land of the free'.