This does help in practical connections because it's now possible to build a device that tell the source it is HDCP compliant, does the decryption, the repeats the raw stream out another port. Just slap one inline on any connection giving you grief and you're good to go.
Even really pick negotiations shouldn't be a problem, because the device can agree to whatever restrictions the source wants to enforce without really caring what they are because it's not really trying to build a compliant connection.
Of course, such a device would still be a DMCA violation, but that shouldn't really be a big deal if you're willing to shop eBay instead of Radio Shack.
AACS has been cracked in a way that's practical enough for non-technical users. Check out MakeMKV . It's two-click simple to rip a Blu-Ray to MKV files without losing any A/V streams or recoding. You can even stream live to HTTP if you'd like to do from-disk playback in a system that accepts web streams but doesn't yet have AACS decryption.
You can also rip complete disk images, if you prefer to keep the original stream wrappers and whatnot.
The only part that's really missing is a Blu-Ray menu playback system, which isn't surprising because there's actually a good deal of software necessary to run Blu-Ray menus.
The Compaq Prosigna with an AMD K6-II @ 475 MHz and 64 MB of RAM listed at $2299 in November 1999. Even if you discounted the software and 32 MB of RAM (which was actually not that expensive by 1999) we're not even in the sub-$1000 range.
A) I agree, many people pirate because they can. That's unfortunate, but nothing new. And that doesn't imply that if pirating were illegal they would buy things instead -- their budget for content is probably very similar with or without pirating. So without pirating people would just consume less unique content, or would consume more legitimately free content.
B) Most of the stuff I pirate is *not* available in stores. I rarely pirate anything that I can buy. Occasionally I'll pirate something that is technically available but absurdly overpriced due to being out-of-print (say Lexx Season 2, region 1). I may not be the typical case, but I doubt I'm the only one working that way. It's also very difficult to get recent movies and (until quite recently and still with sever limitations) current-season TV through any legitimate retail channel. You can buy it eventually, but there are social implications to being 1 season behind on TV watching -- not a lot of discussion about what happened on Lost 2 years ago around the water cooler.
C) A lot of pirated content -- recent TV shows, popular songs, etc. -- is available at no cost to consumers via OTA, unencrypted transmissions. But 1930s broadcast technology make it inconvenient to consume from those sources. Why is it legal to record the OTA broadcast but not legal to grab the same show via bittorrent? Why doesn't ABC just post their shows, commercials intact, on thepriatebay? Sure, someone would repost it would commercials, but a lot of people would take the known-good, non-virus, first-posted copy that appears as a torrent the second the show first broadcasts vs. the secondhand copy that appears hours later. I pay for Showtime, who doesn't even *have* commercials, but I still download my their shows just because it's easier than them recording myself. Why aren't they providing this service directly so they can control access and bypass the cable monopoly? I'd be happy to upload my torrents only to other Showtime subscribers if it were technically feasible.
D) It's quite obvious that content providers have decided they want to get ~$20/transaction, even if that's not the optimal point for maximum profit. We know this because content prices haven't changed even as the marginal reproduction costs have approached $0. So they're colluding to attempt to *make* that the optimal price point simply by lack of choice. It's hard to feel sorry for an industry colluding in a fight against market optimization even if the other side is also a bunch of criminals.
Your rover link says the problem was too many files on the filesystem/in the directory. That's hardly a race condition. Did you mean another link to an actual problem related to race conditions? Or how about to a project that doesn't intentionally hinder itself with an ancient OS? There are reasons to your RxWorks, but "sane, modern filesystem" is not one of them.
Try the rename() call. It's atomic on any POSIX system, on any file system, including NFS. Recent Windows has a similar MoveFileTransacted() call, though admittedly it's harder in Wn32. But even the Windows ReplaceFile() call is relatively safe -- it's not atomic at the OS level, and could break on power failure/etc., but it would fix 99% of real-world failures and 100% of userland-related failures. As the original poster suggested, it's programming 101.
More importantly, how about cars? You can resell the car but first you have to disable and remove all the software. The new owner can license their own copy for a mere $5k direct from the OEM.
No, they really shouldn't. They should temporarily authenticate as a privileged user to install new software, then return to their normal, unprivileged state to actually run it.
First, RackSpace isn't blocking anything. There are hundreds of other hosting companies that could be used to provide the same services. Being refused service at a single Starbucks, or even at all StarBucks, does not prevent one from obtaining coffee.
Second, telecom companies operate under special rules in exchange for special privileges. If it were plausible to setup 100 competing telecom carriers in the same area I'd absolutely allow AT&T decide what they do and don't want to carry. But it's not possible, hence the special regulation.
Finally, even if RackSpace is "suppressing" free speech, their right to free speech allows them to do so. And your right to free speech allows you to whine about it on/. and find another hosting provider.
Next time you're watching 3D material, close one of your eyes. Other than being slightly darker it looks perfectly normal. That's exactly what you can get with a camera, simply by holding one lens of the provided glasses in front of the camera lens.
I'm also not sure where you got your 10% number from. Last I heard it's more like 50%, maybe a little less. There are lots of laptops, but walk into almost any office in the country and you'll find a desktop in almost every cube. That's not going to change for the millions of users that have no use for a mobile machine until and unless laptops gain price quality with desktops (which is infeasible given current manufacturing technology).
Is QuickTime really that bad? I understand the objection to "claim all file types", but that's true of all commercial A/V systems. Beyond that, is there anything in particular I should object to about QuickTime, or is it just random Apple hate?
If you're worried about call security you shouldn't trust the regular cell network, let alone some ad-hoc network setup for a hippie crowd. Regardless of the carrier you should provide your own end-to-end encryption if security is a concern.
First, I'm pretty sure a student who turns into an attacker doesn't need their teacher to tell them to think about how to attack. Presumably that's just something you figure out on-the-job without anyone needing to prompt you. Or are you suggesting that terrorism started when some teacher first asked this question?
Second, you're using moving ratings as an example of how we protect children? Are you kidding? Or even as an example of a just and worthwhile process that people accept as universally beneficial?
Finally, I'd argue that you're underexposing younger minds to social disorder, leaving them ill-prepared to deal with a world where it actually exists. Or God forbid, to actually start their own social disorder in response to social injustices they might witness. Not to mention the obvious benefits to critical and hypothetical reasoning skills, the ability to rationally consider situations that induce fear rather than just hoping that your parents/government/etc. deals with it for you and accepting whatever they say as the best and only solution, the follow-on discussions on the tradeoffs between security and freedom, and the possibility that we might uncover new ideas on how to provide useful safety.
Which is exactly why real numbers stations broadcast continuously and not only when sending useful messages. Otherwise you can correlate activity with broadcasts, which can be a huge information leak.
You can do one better and send your logs off-site to a third party that guarantees read-only access. It's just as easy to setup and unless your admins can bribe the third-party it's awfully hard to alter the logs. They could probably add fake messages, or possibly stop the logs from going out, but the former is possible with just about any logging system, and the later should only be possible after they had done something that first generated a log.
Your mother can connect a digital camera to her computer and successfully print things? Mine does that with an appliance -- the one at Wal-Mart that makes the sort of photo-paper prints she expects when she wants photo prints. There's no way she'd try to connect her camera to a general-purpose computer; it would probably never ever occur to her that such a thing is possible, and even if she had that thought she'd quickly dismiss it for the convenience of having a single-purpose device that can do it instead of a general-purpose computer.
How do you think read-photos-from-SD-card printers became so popular? They don't *do* anything more than a regular printer, and in terms of the number of steps required to print and relatively low feedback UI they're probably objectively harder to use. But they're configured as an appliance and therefore subjectively simpler just by being limited in scope, and people like my mother would rather buy a dedicated appliance for each type of document she'd like to print than learn how to connect a generic printer to any document source via a general-purpose computer.
There's a *huge* market for limited-scope appliance-like computing devices. I am not in the market, and you probably; at best I'd be in the "buy the hardware and hack a real OS onto it" market. But I am not most people and there's a lot of money to be made selling to people who aren't me.
And then there's all the "I want a phone that just makes voice calls" talk here on slashdot -- this is a tech forum and there are still a ton of people who want a limited-function device because they perceive it as being better at its job and/or easier to use. There's nothing wrong with that, and in some cases it may even be objectively true. But it doesn't even matter if it's false, because it's something people are willing to buy because they *believe* it's the best option for their purposes.
I don't agree. Secluded locations in public are still in public. It's not an unreasonably burden to take your conversation onto private property, out of view/earshot of the public, and a failure to do so suggests that you don't care that anyone else heard your conversation, or at least don't care enough to make it truly private.
For example, you wander off into the trees to get some "privacy" in public. But unbeknownst to you, someone else already wandered into those same trees and is dictating their thoughts into an audio recording device. During a lull in their dictation, you approach them and have your "private" conversation. Are you suggesting that their recording of your conversation would not be legal because you expected privacy in a secluded portion of a public area? Or that the person already in the trees must announce themselves or stop their recording?
You say firewall, but I don't think you know what it means. There's absolutely no reason you can't have a "hardware firewall" with IPv6. It works exactly like the IPv4 hardware firewall, but with longer addresses.
If you mean no more NAT, that's closer to the truth. IPv6 doesn't forbid NAT, but most platforms don't support it. Why you'd need to do NAT when you have IPv6 is beyond me though.
I'm not sure there's a lot of value in masking the number of machines you have, but it's easy enough to do with IPv4 or IPv6 -- just install a proxy server. A proxy server is a much better choice because it can actually re-write the application-level data to mask the unique cookies/etc. that are available to remote systems in addition to masking their address.
Most people would consider a communications device their "backup". They would not expect to use it unless there was already a problem. Having a secondary backup is not a *bad* plan, but depending on your definition of wilderness it's quite possibly overkill -- if you're a 2 day hike from the nearest highway, a single phone as backup is probably not sufficient. But if you're camping 5 hours from your car, it's probably fine.
Employers who care already can and do ask applicants to provide grades, sometimes even requiring an official transcript at the applicant's expense. Why would employers suddenly be willing to pay some third party for this information when they're already getting it for free. Plus you probably don't want to work someplace that uses grades to make hiring decisions, at least not for anyone other than 0-experience recent graduates, because they obviously have bad HR practices.
The company might be looking to mine data here, but the model you suggest seems unlikely. It would have to be something much more indirect, where grades are not already available -- like basing your iTunes or health insurance costs on your college grades (not that either of those are terribly plausible examples, but some might exist) -- because students are typically willing to share their grades at no cost with anyone who has even a vaguely legitimate reason to ask.
First, you should not give them your credentials. You should create their own credentials and grant them access to the appropriate parts of your account. If your grade system does not allow this you shouldn't sign up -- it's not worth the risk. Plus I'm guessing they don't support such systems anyway; most big schools have allowed students to create third-party logins for their employer/parents/etc. for a while now.
Second, while they might intend to mine your account for other information, and the agreement language certainly allows it, my guess is that's just boilerplate language to avoid any liability if their scraping script fetches the wrong page, or if someone debugging the script sees some other data in your account.
Employers that care about grade already ask for grades, sometimes even requiring applicants to provide official transcripts at their own cost. There's no reason employers would pay for such a service when they can get it for free.
That's not to say that this information won't be sold, just that the particular business model you propose is unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
This does help in practical connections because it's now possible to build a device that tell the source it is HDCP compliant, does the decryption, the repeats the raw stream out another port. Just slap one inline on any connection giving you grief and you're good to go.
Even really pick negotiations shouldn't be a problem, because the device can agree to whatever restrictions the source wants to enforce without really caring what they are because it's not really trying to build a compliant connection.
Of course, such a device would still be a DMCA violation, but that shouldn't really be a big deal if you're willing to shop eBay instead of Radio Shack.
AACS has been cracked in a way that's practical enough for non-technical users. Check out MakeMKV . It's two-click simple to rip a Blu-Ray to MKV files without losing any A/V streams or recoding. You can even stream live to HTTP if you'd like to do from-disk playback in a system that accepts web streams but doesn't yet have AACS decryption.
You can also rip complete disk images, if you prefer to keep the original stream wrappers and whatnot.
The only part that's really missing is a Blu-Ray menu playback system, which isn't surprising because there's actually a good deal of software necessary to run Blu-Ray menus.
Try again:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/13806/compaq_prosignia_150_amd_k62475.html
The Compaq Prosigna with an AMD K6-II @ 475 MHz and 64 MB of RAM listed at $2299 in November 1999. Even if you discounted the software and 32 MB of RAM (which was actually not that expensive by 1999) we're not even in the sub-$1000 range.
A) I agree, many people pirate because they can. That's unfortunate, but nothing new. And that doesn't imply that if pirating were illegal they would buy things instead -- their budget for content is probably very similar with or without pirating. So without pirating people would just consume less unique content, or would consume more legitimately free content.
B) Most of the stuff I pirate is *not* available in stores. I rarely pirate anything that I can buy. Occasionally I'll pirate something that is technically available but absurdly overpriced due to being out-of-print (say Lexx Season 2, region 1). I may not be the typical case, but I doubt I'm the only one working that way. It's also very difficult to get recent movies and (until quite recently and still with sever limitations) current-season TV through any legitimate retail channel. You can buy it eventually, but there are social implications to being 1 season behind on TV watching -- not a lot of discussion about what happened on Lost 2 years ago around the water cooler.
C) A lot of pirated content -- recent TV shows, popular songs, etc. -- is available at no cost to consumers via OTA, unencrypted transmissions. But 1930s broadcast technology make it inconvenient to consume from those sources. Why is it legal to record the OTA broadcast but not legal to grab the same show via bittorrent? Why doesn't ABC just post their shows, commercials intact, on thepriatebay? Sure, someone would repost it would commercials, but a lot of people would take the known-good, non-virus, first-posted copy that appears as a torrent the second the show first broadcasts vs. the secondhand copy that appears hours later. I pay for Showtime, who doesn't even *have* commercials, but I still download my their shows just because it's easier than them recording myself. Why aren't they providing this service directly so they can control access and bypass the cable monopoly? I'd be happy to upload my torrents only to other Showtime subscribers if it were technically feasible.
D) It's quite obvious that content providers have decided they want to get ~$20/transaction, even if that's not the optimal point for maximum profit. We know this because content prices haven't changed even as the marginal reproduction costs have approached $0. So they're colluding to attempt to *make* that the optimal price point simply by lack of choice. It's hard to feel sorry for an industry colluding in a fight against market optimization even if the other side is also a bunch of criminals.
Your rover link says the problem was too many files on the filesystem/in the directory. That's hardly a race condition. Did you mean another link to an actual problem related to race conditions? Or how about to a project that doesn't intentionally hinder itself with an ancient OS? There are reasons to your RxWorks, but "sane, modern filesystem" is not one of them.
Try the rename() call. It's atomic on any POSIX system, on any file system, including NFS. Recent Windows has a similar MoveFileTransacted() call, though admittedly it's harder in Wn32. But even the Windows ReplaceFile() call is relatively safe -- it's not atomic at the OS level, and could break on power failure/etc., but it would fix 99% of real-world failures and 100% of userland-related failures. As the original poster suggested, it's programming 101.
More importantly, how about cars? You can resell the car but first you have to disable and remove all the software. The new owner can license their own copy for a mere $5k direct from the OEM.
No, they really shouldn't. They should temporarily authenticate as a privileged user to install new software, then return to their normal, unprivileged state to actually run it.
First, RackSpace isn't blocking anything. There are hundreds of other hosting companies that could be used to provide the same services. Being refused service at a single Starbucks, or even at all StarBucks, does not prevent one from obtaining coffee.
Second, telecom companies operate under special rules in exchange for special privileges. If it were plausible to setup 100 competing telecom carriers in the same area I'd absolutely allow AT&T decide what they do and don't want to carry. But it's not possible, hence the special regulation.
Finally, even if RackSpace is "suppressing" free speech, their right to free speech allows them to do so. And your right to free speech allows you to whine about it on /. and find another hosting provider.
Next time you're watching 3D material, close one of your eyes. Other than being slightly darker it looks perfectly normal. That's exactly what you can get with a camera, simply by holding one lens of the provided glasses in front of the camera lens.
I'm gonna go with "the huge margins on $1k+ machines". For the same reason that every other computer mfg. still sells high-end desktops. And Apple is by far the best at it: http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624
I'm also not sure where you got your 10% number from. Last I heard it's more like 50%, maybe a little less. There are lots of laptops, but walk into almost any office in the country and you'll find a desktop in almost every cube. That's not going to change for the millions of users that have no use for a mobile machine until and unless laptops gain price quality with desktops (which is infeasible given current manufacturing technology).
Is QuickTime really that bad? I understand the objection to "claim all file types", but that's true of all commercial A/V systems. Beyond that, is there anything in particular I should object to about QuickTime, or is it just random Apple hate?
If you're worried about call security you shouldn't trust the regular cell network, let alone some ad-hoc network setup for a hippie crowd. Regardless of the carrier you should provide your own end-to-end encryption if security is a concern.
There's a complete change history available for every article on Wikipedia, and the ability to generate links to a specific version.
First, I'm pretty sure a student who turns into an attacker doesn't need their teacher to tell them to think about how to attack. Presumably that's just something you figure out on-the-job without anyone needing to prompt you. Or are you suggesting that terrorism started when some teacher first asked this question?
Second, you're using moving ratings as an example of how we protect children? Are you kidding? Or even as an example of a just and worthwhile process that people accept as universally beneficial?
Finally, I'd argue that you're underexposing younger minds to social disorder, leaving them ill-prepared to deal with a world where it actually exists. Or God forbid, to actually start their own social disorder in response to social injustices they might witness. Not to mention the obvious benefits to critical and hypothetical reasoning skills, the ability to rationally consider situations that induce fear rather than just hoping that your parents/government/etc. deals with it for you and accepting whatever they say as the best and only solution, the follow-on discussions on the tradeoffs between security and freedom, and the possibility that we might uncover new ideas on how to provide useful safety.
Which is exactly why real numbers stations broadcast continuously and not only when sending useful messages. Otherwise you can correlate activity with broadcasts, which can be a huge information leak.
You can do one better and send your logs off-site to a third party that guarantees read-only access. It's just as easy to setup and unless your admins can bribe the third-party it's awfully hard to alter the logs. They could probably add fake messages, or possibly stop the logs from going out, but the former is possible with just about any logging system, and the later should only be possible after they had done something that first generated a log.
Your mother can connect a digital camera to her computer and successfully print things? Mine does that with an appliance -- the one at Wal-Mart that makes the sort of photo-paper prints she expects when she wants photo prints. There's no way she'd try to connect her camera to a general-purpose computer; it would probably never ever occur to her that such a thing is possible, and even if she had that thought she'd quickly dismiss it for the convenience of having a single-purpose device that can do it instead of a general-purpose computer.
How do you think read-photos-from-SD-card printers became so popular? They don't *do* anything more than a regular printer, and in terms of the number of steps required to print and relatively low feedback UI they're probably objectively harder to use. But they're configured as an appliance and therefore subjectively simpler just by being limited in scope, and people like my mother would rather buy a dedicated appliance for each type of document she'd like to print than learn how to connect a generic printer to any document source via a general-purpose computer.
There's a *huge* market for limited-scope appliance-like computing devices. I am not in the market, and you probably; at best I'd be in the "buy the hardware and hack a real OS onto it" market. But I am not most people and there's a lot of money to be made selling to people who aren't me.
And then there's all the "I want a phone that just makes voice calls" talk here on slashdot -- this is a tech forum and there are still a ton of people who want a limited-function device because they perceive it as being better at its job and/or easier to use. There's nothing wrong with that, and in some cases it may even be objectively true. But it doesn't even matter if it's false, because it's something people are willing to buy because they *believe* it's the best option for their purposes.
I don't agree. Secluded locations in public are still in public. It's not an unreasonably burden to take your conversation onto private property, out of view/earshot of the public, and a failure to do so suggests that you don't care that anyone else heard your conversation, or at least don't care enough to make it truly private.
For example, you wander off into the trees to get some "privacy" in public. But unbeknownst to you, someone else already wandered into those same trees and is dictating their thoughts into an audio recording device. During a lull in their dictation, you approach them and have your "private" conversation. Are you suggesting that their recording of your conversation would not be legal because you expected privacy in a secluded portion of a public area? Or that the person already in the trees must announce themselves or stop their recording?
Or just use a firewall and forget about NAT. They aren't the same thing and you don't need to run NAT in order to get a stateful firewall.
You say firewall, but I don't think you know what it means. There's absolutely no reason you can't have a "hardware firewall" with IPv6. It works exactly like the IPv4 hardware firewall, but with longer addresses.
If you mean no more NAT, that's closer to the truth. IPv6 doesn't forbid NAT, but most platforms don't support it. Why you'd need to do NAT when you have IPv6 is beyond me though.
I'm not sure there's a lot of value in masking the number of machines you have, but it's easy enough to do with IPv4 or IPv6 -- just install a proxy server. A proxy server is a much better choice because it can actually re-write the application-level data to mask the unique cookies/etc. that are available to remote systems in addition to masking their address.
Most people would consider a communications device their "backup". They would not expect to use it unless there was already a problem. Having a secondary backup is not a *bad* plan, but depending on your definition of wilderness it's quite possibly overkill -- if you're a 2 day hike from the nearest highway, a single phone as backup is probably not sufficient. But if you're camping 5 hours from your car, it's probably fine.
Employers who care already can and do ask applicants to provide grades, sometimes even requiring an official transcript at the applicant's expense. Why would employers suddenly be willing to pay some third party for this information when they're already getting it for free. Plus you probably don't want to work someplace that uses grades to make hiring decisions, at least not for anyone other than 0-experience recent graduates, because they obviously have bad HR practices.
The company might be looking to mine data here, but the model you suggest seems unlikely. It would have to be something much more indirect, where grades are not already available -- like basing your iTunes or health insurance costs on your college grades (not that either of those are terribly plausible examples, but some might exist) -- because students are typically willing to share their grades at no cost with anyone who has even a vaguely legitimate reason to ask.
First, you should not give them your credentials. You should create their own credentials and grant them access to the appropriate parts of your account. If your grade system does not allow this you shouldn't sign up -- it's not worth the risk. Plus I'm guessing they don't support such systems anyway; most big schools have allowed students to create third-party logins for their employer/parents/etc. for a while now.
Second, while they might intend to mine your account for other information, and the agreement language certainly allows it, my guess is that's just boilerplate language to avoid any liability if their scraping script fetches the wrong page, or if someone debugging the script sees some other data in your account.
Employers that care about grade already ask for grades, sometimes even requiring applicants to provide official transcripts at their own cost. There's no reason employers would pay for such a service when they can get it for free.
That's not to say that this information won't be sold, just that the particular business model you propose is unlikely.