it is already possible to copy the media bit for bit and write another copy of DVD to play in any normal DVD player (i don't keep up with DVD writable stuff, but if that capability isn't already there, it will be). all that the encryption protects against is:
a) playing the media with DVD equipment/software that is licensed and has a decryption key.
b) getting perfect copies of the video contained on the DVD (most DVD players have digital out, so we could get that anyway -- granted, in some cases the precision/bitrate coming out the digital outs is not as good as is actually stored on the DVD). right now, we can *still* get pretty good copies
of the video just from SVideo capturing or, if such a way exists, capturing from the component outs of any higher-end DVD player.
SO. the encryption does *nothing* to limit/restrict/hinder copying of the DVD movies themselves. they can put all the encryption they want on it, joe blow pirater can still rip the DVD and put it on a website for others to download and burn their own copies. about all that it prevents is repackaging the video/audio, or using perfect copies of the video in some other context other than the movie. how much could that matter in comparison to the DVD sales which is not impacted by the encryption?
so that doesn't seem like a viable reason for them to make all this up (am i missing something on that angle??).
so, and i'm certainly not the first to point this out, it seems that all they're protecting is the DVD player makers.
heh. i had one of these in my dorm room for a while -- got it when the computing center (which i happened to work for) needed to clear out some room in the machine room for some other servers i was bringing online.
was fun to play with for a while, but i got tired of lugging a 150' computer that was substantially slower than my laptop up and down stairs a couple times a year.
i had the big-ass case on wheels version, which was the *perfect* size for supporting an opened pizza box;)
well, frankly, i would like to see a good benchmark.
i'm building a huge site which will have a ton of data stored in a database. i don't need much in the way of functionality beyond simple joins, sorting, etc. so i'd like to see which of the choices i have (mysql, postresql, interbase, oracle are the ones i'm considering) will let me do what i need (and all of those will) the fastest...
well, i can't claim to know the motivations for this omission, but my guess is that the cause is lack of time rather than trying to hide anything. in any case, i too would like to see that comparison.
Automatic copy by value is a sticky language concept. Where does the copying by value stop?
In other words: What if I have an object with an array filled with a billion other objects. Then I've got another object with a reference to the first object. What if I want to make a copy of this object? Does it then make a copy of the billion objects in the first object?
Thanks much for your comments. Perhaps the solution is to just tell the smallish customers to use PayPal. I'm going to try to investigate how their 'business' accounts work...
Does anyone know how PayPal is able to transfer money from person to person with CC transactions without making themselves liable? What if the person you buy something from over PayPal doesn't send it -- How is PayPal not liable? How do they do it without requiring the sellers to have a merchant account?
I'm asking because I'm looking for a way to do something similar myself -- to be able to process CC transactions without requiring my (very small) customers to each get merchant accounts...
I've spent literally whole days of my life "dumbing down" web sites so that they will work with MSIE. Also, being "tolerant of mistakes" is a HORRIBLE thing, as it encourages what this whole issue is about -- not following standards. Behaviour is barely defined well for correct HTML, and we should not have to define how incorrect HTML should be handled just so it will look the same in all browsers.
1) How do you know that how C# does it doesn't impose more overhead than doing the wrapping in Java?
2) Grr. Messy. Java feels a bit 'sterile' sometimes to program in, but that's one thing that makes it so nice. You can always figure out what should happen, except where ambiguity is explicitly specified (as in garbage collection policy).
3) Granted, this would be nice. However, this is better (more OOishly, IMHO) handled with Iterators/Enumerations/whatever.
4) This might be handy, but would create some potentially serious ambiguity. You can't tell just by looking at code what is happening, which is bad. Granted, it could be seen as a type of information (or, in this case, functionality) encapsulation, however, there's no way to write something that isn't ambiguous whereas in Java if you write that you _know_ nothing weird is going on.
5) I didn't take a look at the doc yet, but if this is useful, then it would be nice. Could be added easily to other languages though.
6) Again, this creates syntax ambiguity. It will look nicer, but will make it more difficult to understand what is going on. What about an array of 'indexer enabled' (or whatever the term would be)? THAT would be messy.
Now, all I'm saying here is that I'd rather use Java than C#.
Slashdot Mirror
exactly.
it is already possible to copy the media bit for bit and write another copy of DVD to play in any normal DVD player (i don't keep up with DVD writable stuff, but if that capability isn't already there, it will be). all that the encryption protects against is:
a) playing the media with DVD equipment/software that is licensed and has a decryption key.
b) getting perfect copies of the video contained on the DVD (most DVD players have digital out, so we could get that anyway -- granted, in some cases the precision/bitrate coming out the digital outs is not as good as is actually stored on the DVD). right now, we can *still* get pretty good copies
of the video just from SVideo capturing or, if such a way exists, capturing from the component outs of any higher-end DVD player.
SO. the encryption does *nothing* to limit/restrict/hinder copying of the DVD movies themselves. they can put all the encryption they want on it, joe blow pirater can still rip the DVD and put it on a website for others to download and burn their own copies. about all that it prevents is repackaging the video/audio, or using perfect copies of the video in some other context other than the movie. how much could that matter in comparison to the DVD sales which is not impacted by the encryption?
so that doesn't seem like a viable reason for them to make all this up (am i missing something on that angle??).
so, and i'm certainly not the first to point this out, it seems that all they're protecting is the DVD player makers.
heh. i had one of these in my dorm room for a while -- got it when the computing center (which i happened to work for) needed to clear out some room in the machine room for some other servers i was bringing online.
;)
was fun to play with for a while, but i got tired of lugging a 150' computer that was substantially slower than my laptop up and down stairs a couple times a year.
i had the big-ass case on wheels version, which was the *perfect* size for supporting an opened pizza box
well, frankly, i would like to see a good benchmark.
i'm building a huge site which will have a ton of data stored in a database. i don't need much in the way of functionality beyond simple joins, sorting, etc. so i'd like to see which of the choices i have (mysql, postresql, interbase, oracle are the ones i'm considering) will let me do what i need (and all of those will) the fastest...
well, i can't claim to know the motivations for this omission, but my guess is that the cause is lack of time rather than trying to hide anything. in any case, i too would like to see that comparison.
he never asserted that it did meet any definition of any sort of database or DBMS.
http://www.mysql.com/information/b enchmarks.html
Which version were you using?
Automatic copy by value is a sticky language concept. Where does the copying by value stop?
In other words: What if I have an object with an array filled with a billion other objects. Then I've got another object with a reference to the first object. What if I want to make a copy of this object? Does it then make a copy of the billion objects in the first object?
Thanks much for your comments. Perhaps the solution is to just tell the smallish customers to use PayPal. I'm going to try to investigate how their 'business' accounts work...
Does anyone know how PayPal is able to transfer money from person to person with CC transactions without making themselves liable? What if the person you buy something from over PayPal doesn't send it -- How is PayPal not liable? How do they do it without requiring the sellers to have a merchant account?
I'm asking because I'm looking for a way to do something similar myself -- to be able to process CC transactions without requiring my (very small) customers to each get merchant accounts...
Thanks.
I've spent literally whole days of my life "dumbing down" web sites so that they will work with MSIE. Also, being "tolerant of mistakes" is a HORRIBLE thing, as it encourages what this whole issue is about -- not following standards. Behaviour is barely defined well for correct HTML, and we should not have to define how incorrect HTML should be handled just so it will look the same in all browsers.
1) How do you know that how C# does it doesn't impose more overhead than doing the wrapping in Java?
2) Grr. Messy. Java feels a bit 'sterile' sometimes to program in, but that's one thing that makes it so nice. You can always figure out what should happen, except where ambiguity is explicitly specified (as in garbage collection policy).
3) Granted, this would be nice. However, this is better (more OOishly, IMHO) handled with Iterators/Enumerations/whatever.
4) This might be handy, but would create some potentially serious ambiguity. You can't tell just by looking at code what is happening, which is bad. Granted, it could be seen as a type of information (or, in this case, functionality) encapsulation, however, there's no way to write something that isn't ambiguous whereas in Java if you write that you _know_ nothing weird is going on.
5) I didn't take a look at the doc yet, but if this is useful, then it would be nice. Could be added easily to other languages though.
6) Again, this creates syntax ambiguity. It will look nicer, but will make it more difficult to understand what is going on. What about an array of 'indexer enabled' (or whatever the term would be)? THAT would be messy.
Now, all I'm saying here is that I'd rather use Java than C#.
Is that an infinite amount of tape in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
[Sorry]