It's got a big, colorful UI just like TIVO and now can handle recording from listings. (And I believe it works with listings all over the world. It definitely works in Ireland, UK, and USA -- I bet it'll work in Canada.)
ShowShifter is really cool. It uses DivX pro to record, can be programmed to record just like a TIVO, and doesn't cost a penny beyond the initial purchase -- which is quite cheap for what it offers (US$49 for the standard version, $79 for the pro version with DivxPro).
Jones is the head of Escient Technologies, a company that develops in-home systems that merge Internet power with electronic appliances and devices.
Is this guy an idiot? This sort of thing is like hanging a sign out front and asking the script-kiddies, "Pleaze, dudez, hack my house. Hack my shower."
Why in the world would I want my appliance merged with anything having to do with the internet?
So some pimply faced kid named 'Dakota Flushboy' can come and make my convection oven turn on instead of my toaster?
What the second-to-last paragraph in the paper? There's a missing word. A pretty important word, too. (How can this paper be featured all over the map and have an error like this?)
Anyway, is it:
"Or perhaps the carrying capacity of a well-designed P2P network is huge, and *NO* amount of flooding can overwhelm the network."
Or:
"Or perhaps the carrying capacity of a well-designed P2P network is huge, and *ANY* amount of flooding can overwhelm the network."
If I were the goddamn RIAA or the MPAA (Jack "Maddog... Grrrr!!" Valenti, I mean) I'd focus a little bit on image enhancement.
If I were the RIAA, I'd tell my employees to stop acting like a bunch of two-bit hackers start giving the customers what they want.
Really, this whole thing -- from poisoning P2P network to authorizing legal hacks on 14 year old uers -- is absurd.
Hilary and Jack "Maddog... Grrrr!!!" Valenti oughta take their fingers from the sockets and start talking with users and figuring out how they can get users what they want and the users can give the RIAA and MPAA what they want.
It's a long process, but I'll tell you one thing: the more the RIAA and MPAA keep employing the shock-trooper tactics, the less goodwill and grace (if such goodwill and grace ever existed, but I think it did -- at least in part) they're gonna get from Joe and Joe-elle Consumer.
Okay, let me preface this by saying I'm genuinely curious about the answer. So I'm not trying to sow the troll seeds here.
That said, I'm curious about what people are using these super-fast processors for. Apart from upgrading so that you can play the immiment Unreal Tournament 2003 demo ("Only two weeks away!") and hoping to get the jump on a Doom 3 system -- what exactly are people doing with their super-high powered rigs?
I just upgraded to an Athlon XP 2000+ (from a PIII), and while I sorta dug the impressive 3DMark2001SE scores (over 10,000 with a Ti4600), I'm still not exactly sure what I need all this speed for.
For gaming, yes.
But for what else? MS Word still opens in a split-second.
OpenOffice 1.01 still opens pretty quickly.
IE, Netscape, and Opera still open in a split-second.
And, yes, now I run Quake3 with all the settings cranked.
But this sorta of "gee whiz, that's cool" wore off in a couple of days.
Now I'm left with a pretty powerful system, but I'm at loss as to what it has actually improved. Maybe if I were doing a lot of coding, then the compilation speeds would jump significantly, but I guess since my main coding right now is writing a fairly small (only around 6,500 lines) text-adventure in INFORM, I haven't really seen the jump in compilation speeds I'd see if I were compiling hundreds of thousands of lines of code...
So, I'm curious. I haven't tried NWN yet, so maybe that's the sort of high-powered cybercrank I need to get myself hooked on the slickmercury speeds of AXP 2000+ and Ti4600.
There's always the new Neocron (sp?) beta 4 out...
Anyone?
Re:My MS Activation Story: True Story.
on
Microsoft News Update
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Nope. I'm not lying.
I have a valid key but not a valid installation ID. Thus far -- last night and this morning -- it has stumped everyone.
Apparently, mine is the first case they've seen. I can't believe that, but that's what I'm being told.
I've read my MSDN key over 10 times in the past hour. They've verified the key, checked it, and even issued me a "temporary" key. Everything works, but *everything* fails when the installation ID is generated.
In fact, this "activation" is so anonymous that right now -- as of this morning -- Microsoft now has my name, address, email address, MSDN ID#, MSDN key, and a listing of each component in my computer.
And MS plans (apparently) to "bomb" any cracked installations of XP. (I gather some sort of cracked DLL or file monkeyed with the WPA and allowed for pseudo-activation.)
MS is still not clear about this. But I'm curious if MS finally got the hint and is now planning to keep a database of all "authentic" Windows XP keys. If this is the case, then I assume the various keygens won't work. (Or they'll work, but when it comes time to activate, you'll find that you don't actually have an "authentic" key.)
Slightly OT, but I thought I'd share my own XP activation experience. It happened last night and it bascially stumped Microsoft.
The short story goes something like this: I'm an MSDN subscriber. My MSDN subscription entitles me to Windows XP keys that will activate up to 10 pcs. So far so good.
Anyway, I go to the MSDN site, log in with my usual username and password. Generate my keys. Get my "10 activation" key for Office XP, Pro XP, Home XP.
Now, according to the license, these generated keys will activate 10 pcs for each application. (In other words, I can put WinXP Pro on my workstation at work and my workstation at home. This counts as two "activations" on two different PCs and is completely within the terms of the license. Each computer, of course, has to be for "development" purposes -- which, oddly enough, they are. My computer at home is actually a computer I use when I telecommute. And I develop on it. So, again, I'm completely within the terms of license agreement.)
Okay, so that's the background. Here's the good part: I install WinXP Pro on my home "work" workstation using the MSDN supplied key. (The copy of WinXP Pro I'm installing, BTW, is the ISO I downloaded from the MSDN site. The copy of Windows XP I'm legally entitled to according to the terms of my MSDN unverisal subscription.)
The MSDN issued key passes the first XP keycheck -- the check that appears before it actually installs. No complaints, install goes smoothly. I boot to the desktop. All's fine. Looks like it installed perfectly.
Except Windows tells me my key is no good.
But wait! It *took* the key when it asked for it, right? Yes. It took it.
I re-enter the key. (And, yes, I'm using the MSDN supplied key on the MSDN ISO -- not the volume license CD, the actual ISO downloaded from the MSDN site.)
Still says my key is no good. It then generates an installation ID -- an obscenely long number -- and tells me that I have to call the 1-888 toll-free activation center.
I call. I give my installation ID. Wait, I'm told, that's not the right installation ID. Generate another one.
I generate another installation ID. (There's a button that can do this when you install XP.)
I read it back. It's still not a valid installation ID.
The activation center guy said he never saw this happen before. Am I reading the correct ID? Did I transpose any digits?
Nope. It's all correct. Read it from right to left, he tells me. I do. Read it from left to right, he tells me. I do.
Wow, he says. I've never seen this before. You have a valid key, he tells me, but Windows is generating an *incorrect* installation ID.
I say, well, I don't care what's going on, I want this thing activated.
Pause. Sir? Can you read me the ID again?
I do. This is the sixth or seventh time I read the ID. Nope, he tells me. Still no good. He puts me on hold. I stay on hold. Sir, he tells me. I'm sorry. Sorry? We can't do anything. You what?
We've never seen this before.
You're kidding.
If you have a correct key, you should get a correct installation ID.
Yes, I say.
Can you read me your key?
I read it. Read it again. And again.
Sir?
Yes?
The key is correct.
I know the key is correct.
Can I put you on hold again?
So I sit and wait. And wait. All told, I've been "activating" for 30 minutes by this time.
Guy comes back on the phone. Sir? We can't do anything.
You're kidding.
He apologizes. He tells me again that he's never seen this happen. You're sure you're using a legit copy?
I explain my MSDN subscription (active, BTW), my MSDN key, my MSDN ISO download.
I'm sorry, he tells me. Try MSDN.
I call MSDN.
Go through the same thing.
Wow, the MSDN tech support guy says. I've never seen this before.
What now?
Good question, he tells me.
He puts me on hold. Consults with a manager.
Sir? There's nothing we can do.
Give me another key.
I can't. I don't have authorization.
Give me someone who has authorization.
We can't generate another key until the morning.
You're kidding. I'm stuck?
I'm afraid so. I've never seen this before, he says.
By this time I'm furious. I want this motherfucker activated.
Finally, the guy puts me on hold.
Sir? I've got a brand new copy of Windows Pro Retail. In my hands. I'm going to read you the key. But you didn't get this from me.
You're giving me another key?
You didn't get this from me, he repeats.
He reads the key. I read it back. That's all I can do, sir, he tells me.
I appreciate it. (Trying to stay calm.) Thank you.
I'm only doing this because you've got a problem we can't fix. You have a valid key, but it's not generating a valid installation ID.
By this time, over an hour has passed. I'm still trying to activate.
He has me enter the new key. I enter it. Try to activate. Comes up with a message: "This key has no more activations."
I wig out. You're fucking shitting me, I tell me. You're fucking shitting me.
Okay, he says. He explains that we'll have to wait until tomorrow morning to get the key re-activated. He'll make sure it gets re-activated first thing. But that's all we can do, he says. I can't do any more tonight.
I tell him that this -- my situation -- is why people pirate software. It's quicker to get a keygen and generate a phony key than to go through this, waste my time and waste my money.
He's sympathetic. I understand, he says. But we'll get this fixed.
Then: Sir?
Yes?
You didn't get that key from me.
Flash forward: right now. It's the next morning. I'm at my desk. I'm reading Slashdot. I'm on hold with Microsoft tech support. I've called three different tech supoort numbers this morning.
They cannot get my copy of Windows XP Pro activated. They cannot re-activate the "mystery" key that my friend last night gave me.
This is the first time they've seen this problem.
Can we get some more specifics? they ask me.
New hard drive, new CDROM, new motherboard. Everything is new.
They're mystified.
I'm still on hold. I'm reading Slashdot while I'm on hold.
A moment ago: Sir? Can you read your key?
I read it.
Yep, they tell me. That's a valid key. Wow. I've never seen this before.
Bawlz (the guanara stuff in the blue glass bottles) and Jolt Espresso flavored Cola (which is absolutely killer -- once you get used to the very strong espresso/cola taste.)
Everything else is for pussies.
Although, yes, Water Joe might qualify as a third since it doesn't have all the sickly sweet sugar that all the other so-called drinks have.
But, I'm telling you: if you want a real buzz: drink a can of Jolt Espresso then make some real espresso with Water Joe. Your hands will shake, your eyelids will quiver, your heartrate will quicken, but you will have a buzz. And the buzz will last for a couple hours.
But when the buzz wears off. Watch out. You'll be cranky, irritable, and completely limp dickless.
Okay, you're right. It hasn't been around for long. I apologize. It just seemed strange to me that he thought it was some sort of conspiracy to click on MSN ads. I figured most people -- even if they don't like Slate -- at least have *heard* of Slate. But maybe not.
True, Slate is part of Microsoft. But it's by no means anything like the "astrology" section on MSN.com or whatever else MSN has on its portal to suck in clicks and generate revenue.
Re:What is this slate.msn.com?
on
Napster Not To Blame
·
· Score: 3, Informative
What are you, twelve years old?
Slate has been around for years. Almost as long as Salon (if not longer.)
Michael Kinsley used to edit it. (The same Kinsley who used to sit off to the side of Buckley's _Firing Line_ and goad good ol' Bill with nuggets o' thought.)
Wait, if you don't know Slate, you probably have no idea who W F Buckley is either, right? Or his National Review?
Last time I saw WFB was on Charlie Rose. WFB hosting for Rose. My god. What a painful experience that was.
Anyway, do yourself a favor. Even if you think NR is fulla shit and WFB is fulla shit then hop on over to (a) Slate (occasionally), (b) National Review (occasionally), and (c) the New Republic (occasionally).
You don't need to agree with the views -- but dear god, my boy, get yourself at least a respectable smidgeon of political knowledge -- and awareness of the "standard" political rags -- so you can refrain from posting bizarre stuff like "What is this Slate thing?"
Why is hardware based encryption impractible to crack?
And "dynamic" -- what does "dynamic" mean in this context? That the CD has a little ethernet connection and requires you to plug it into an internet connection before playing it?
This reminds me of the organic DVDs promised a couple years ago. Rip the special plastic off the DVD and it begins decaying. After 72 hours, the DVD is unplayable. It was touted as revolutionizing the DVD rental business model.
Yeah, what a revolution! Wait... I think I missed that one...
They're Destroying It
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Maybe it's just me, but does it dawn on no one -- at least no one at the RIAA and perhaps the MPAA (Jack "Maddog... Grrrrrrr!" Valenti in particular) that they (and by "they" I mean the RIAA and the MPAA) are slowly destroying the promise (so-called, of course) of digital technology?
All this stuff -- from half-assed watermarking, to government-sanctioned hack attacks on 14 year-old Kazaa users, threatening to throw them in federal high security lockups -- all this stuff is destroying what it's attempting to preserve.
Yeah, but the Crossroads with Ralph Macchio (Karate Kid) is pretty cool. It's definitely worth more than the Crossroads with Britney.
BTW, this is off-topic, but...
Today is a sad day. My Oscar Goldman action figure with the exploding briefcase finally tumbled from my computer. Oscar hit his head. The head cracked.
The briefcase still explodes, though.
Steve Austin, who for 26 years always rode shotgun with Oscar Goldman, has now moved two inches to the right on my "bionic" shelf in order to fill the space that Oscar left. I've still got the Jamie Sommers action figure, the Bionic Transport and Repair Station, and the Maskatron figure. (Although Maskatron has lost his mask.)
Anyway, if you don't know Oscar Goldamn and his exploding briefcase, you're too young.
Now, for something on-topic:
The obvious question -- if this NET act is the law that puts 14 and 15 year olds in the super-high security, DEFCON 1 lockups in Colorado and Illinois for swapping N'Sync and Britney -- is how, exactly, is the $1000 figure calculated?
I'm sure a case could made that each song on each CD -- on the millions of CDs -- are actually worth in excess of one thousand dollars -- each! -- due to distribution costs, royalty payments, hotel bills for executives, Hilary Rosen's swank house in the Hamptons (the price for which has surely been amortized over the millions of Britney CDs littering the land), and MPAA Jack "Maddog... GRrrrrrrr!" Valenti's ivory golf clubs and matching bath towels.
(And no, I have no idea if Hillary has a house in the Hamptons or Maddog Jack has ivory golf clubs...)
Then how do you determine whether or not an intrusion into your network is a "legitimate" RIAA incursion or simply a hacker?
If the RIAA starts doing this -- attacking P2P networks -- then they'll *have* to have some sort of legitimate (again, I have no idea what this means in this context) credential. They'll either have to attack from a permitted domain (in which case, I assume, ISPs could easily block the domain) or have some sort of attack methodology (again, easily blocked, I assume, once you know what they're doing.)
Plus, this makes you wonder about RIAA sub-contractors -- agencies working for the RIAA and engaged in these attacks. Are these groups allowed to carry on the attacks under the aegis of the RIAA?
"No, we're not actually the RIAA, but we work for them, sir."
And wouldn't this suddenly become the number-one-most-attractive-security-loophole? Get employed by the RIAA as a "piracy stormtrooper" and suddenly everything is permitted.
I remember playing Bolo in the University of Michigan's massive "fishbowl" computer lab around 1993. And I remember Bolo sent the entire support staff into a frenzy: everyone was playing it.
Of course, those were the days when the lab consisted of hundreds of PowerMac 6100's but only a handful of Windoze boxen.
Anyway, Stuart, if you're reading this: Bolo was (is?) a fantastically cool game. Many hours when I shoulda been working were spent tooling around in top-down tanks, pummelling pillboxes.
Slightly, off-topic, but I'm afraid there's a new generation of comp-sci students out there who missed out on the glory days of Bolo. (Of course, I get misty-eyed when I hear someone mention TRS-80s and Z80 assembly language, but that's another story -- and another era missed out by today's new generation of computer hot-shots. Not to mention the whole mid-80's coin-op video game revolution. To think, there's a whole bunch of folks who don't know what it's like stack a row of quarters on the top panel of a Pac Man or Donkey Kong stand-up game...)
Well, the problem with this line of reasoning -- comparing something like Napster to so-called "great" political achievements -- is that I'm not certain Napster is pushing any philosophical, civil, or ethical envelopes. Legal, maybe -- but that's about it.
It's about information sharing, yes. And I'll agree that information sharing is important. But in the grand scheme of things, I'm pretty certain information sharing is not in the same league as civil rights or human freedom. In fact, I *know* it's not the same league -- much as some folks wish it to were so.
We're still too close to the Napster "revolution" (so-called) to know what exactly happened, but my guess is not much. Not much happened.
On a more personal note, I'm repulsed by the notion that "Napster" is in the same league as slavery. It's not. Nor is it anything like a legitimate "freedom" struggle. Information is not the same thing as a human being, and the only real "struggle" at work with this P2P stuff is a struggle for control.
There's nothing particularly interesting, provocative, or important in a struggle that pits big corporate greed against so-called "innocent" youth. The demise of Napster is not even a "triumph of capitalism." Nor is it a "triumph of global corporate control."
It's really a triumph of nothing. And in light of human rights abuses across the globe -- including abuses here in America -- I'm not sure we can really derive any "lesson" from the demise of Napster except that, well, there's other, more important battles to fight.
P2P is not a revolution -- not in the sense, at least, that Napster-advocates would like it to be.
The only "triumph" at work with Napster is the "triumph" of the corporate lawyers. And unless you're one of them, pulling a paycheck from all of this, it's not much of a triumph at all.
The solution for copy protection is simple: if content creators are worried about illegal copies, then don't release anything you don't want copied.
They could say, "Well, we've got some great new CDs ready to go. But you won't hear them. Trust us, though, they're great."
This would drastically cut down on the crap that inundates the marketplace,
BTW. It would be a win-win solution for everyone: the RIAA wouldn't have to worry about a CD being copied, consumers would be saved from having to listen to crap, and there'd be less choices that pop up when I search on KazaaLite.
Lucas, Fellini, Kurosawa and the films of 70s
on
The Empire Stumbles
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Or, it might be simply the idea that the original idea wasn't simply a film 'targetted at kids'.
I've written about this before here, but the original Star Wars came out at a pretty unique time in the history of American cinema. The films of the 1970's were quite different than the films of the 90's or of the 00's of this new century.
Obviously, it's easy to point to something like Vietnam and say that, well, Star Wars -- the original -- was a pretty canny, subtle response to a culture still mired in the complex politics of the 60's and 70's.
But Star Wars -- the original -- was also whimsical. It was Lucas' response, I think, to growing up in the 50's and being submerged in the California car culture. Sort of a weird, whimsical amalgam of the Cold War mentality of the 50's and 60's mixed in with the savagery of Vietnam but touched here and there with odd bits of folly and idealism. (Sort of like a simplistic reading of the war in Vietnam -- folly, idealism, savagery.)
Star Wars, I think, was aimed at "kids" the same way that Lucas's previous film 'American Graffiti' was -- it was about kids, really, but it wasn't specifically aimed at them.
My "reading" of Star Wars has always been that it's about kids in a complex world. Han and Luke are a couple of hot-rodders, essentially. And they're both going after the girl (one more than the other, of course, but no one can deny the allure of Luke's almost asexual naivete.)
I suspect the film is a mirror of Lucas's own inner-self. When he made Star Wars he was still a big kid that didn't want to give up (or give in) to the emerging complexities of culture. In many ways, Star Wars is an amazingly naive and gentle film -- nothing like 'Return of the Jedi', for example, which is the first film of the series that has (finally) become 'aware of Star Wars.' RotJ is a film aware of itself. Not so with Star Wars (a joy ride) and most definitely not so with ESB (still naive, still riding fast, but showing signs of dark awareness. You could certainly make the argument that ESB is the end of the joyride. From RotJ on it's the legal speed limit all the way)
But you wonder if Lucas had much of a choice. I think the more interesting route for Ep 3 to go would be dark, violent, and absurd. Think of Kurosawa's 'Ran', for example. A film made late in K's life -- but a masterpiece. Filled with savagery and darkness (even though it's one of the most colorful films you'll ever see projected on a screen.) It's quite disturbing, Ran, and is really -- when you think of it -- an astonishing achievement so late in K's life.
It always amazes me to realize that Lucas, Spielburg, Coppola, Fellini, Kurosawa, and Scorsese were all very close -- close in vision, close in their desire for "epic sweep", and close personally. Lucas and Spielburg helped Kurosawa finance several of K's later films, and there's some great shots of Fellini walking and talking with Spielburg in Rome. What's distressing, however, is that as Kurosawa and Fellini aged, their visions became more rareified (if that's the right word.)
One look at Fellini's 'And the Ship Sails On...' and your heart breaks. It's a wonderful film -- much like K's 'Ran' -- and you see these bright-hot glimmers of genius and power shining through. But Lucas seems to be retreating -- afraid to tackle the difficult problems. The excuse is that, well, he really can't: Star Wars is a marketing machine and the marketing is aimed at kids. Taco Bell needs their DooKoo Pootie cups, McDonalds needs their Annie Happy Meals.
But just as Bruno Bettleheim talks about the need for dark fairy tales in the growth of child's mind, Lucas shouldn't be afraid to tackle the real dark stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
It's got a big, colorful UI just like TIVO and now can handle recording from listings. (And I believe it works with listings all over the world. It definitely works in Ireland, UK, and USA -- I bet it'll work in Canada.)
ShowShifter is really cool. It uses DivX pro to record, can be programmed to record just like a TIVO, and doesn't cost a penny beyond the initial purchase -- which is quite cheap for what it offers (US$49 for the standard version, $79 for the pro version with DivxPro).
Is this guy an idiot? This sort of thing is like hanging a sign out front and asking the script-kiddies, "Pleaze, dudez, hack my house. Hack my shower."
Why in the world would I want my appliance merged with anything having to do with the internet?
So some pimply faced kid named 'Dakota Flushboy' can come and make my convection oven turn on instead of my toaster?
"Hooo-boy, Dakota, you got me. You really did."
William Gibson typed 'Neuromancer' on an old, beat-up typewriter.
'Nuff said.
What the second-to-last paragraph in the paper? There's a missing word. A pretty important word, too. (How can this paper be featured all over the map and have an error like this?)
Anyway, is it:
"Or perhaps the carrying capacity of a well-designed P2P network is huge, and *NO* amount of flooding can overwhelm the network."
Or:
"Or perhaps the carrying capacity of a well-designed P2P network is huge, and *ANY* amount of flooding can overwhelm the network."
Which is it: "no" or "any?"
If I were the goddamn RIAA or the MPAA (Jack "Maddog ... Grrrr!!" Valenti, I mean) I'd focus a little bit on image enhancement.
... Grrrr!!!" Valenti oughta take their fingers from the sockets and start talking with users and figuring out how they can get users what they want and the users can give the RIAA and MPAA what they want.
If I were the RIAA, I'd tell my employees to stop acting like a bunch of two-bit hackers start giving the customers what they want.
Really, this whole thing -- from poisoning P2P network to authorizing legal hacks on 14 year old uers -- is absurd.
Hilary and Jack "Maddog
It's a long process, but I'll tell you one thing: the more the RIAA and MPAA keep employing the shock-trooper tactics, the less goodwill and grace (if such goodwill and grace ever existed, but I think it did -- at least in part) they're gonna get from Joe and Joe-elle Consumer.
Somebody oughta donate a decent microphone for this guy.
I can't believe he's using the on-camera mic! (At least for the interview with Jason)
LOL. That's a funny post. Too bad most people won't get it.
But that *would* be interesting -- Doctorow -- the real Doctorow -- writing cyberpunk. And it would probably be quite good!
Okay, let me preface this by saying I'm genuinely curious about the answer. So I'm not trying to sow the troll seeds here.
...
...
That said, I'm curious about what people are using these super-fast processors for. Apart from upgrading so that you can play the immiment Unreal Tournament 2003 demo ("Only two weeks away!") and hoping to get the jump on a Doom 3 system -- what exactly are people doing with their super-high powered rigs?
I just upgraded to an Athlon XP 2000+ (from a PIII), and while I sorta dug the impressive 3DMark2001SE scores (over 10,000 with a Ti4600), I'm still not exactly sure what I need all this speed for.
For gaming, yes.
But for what else? MS Word still opens in a split-second.
OpenOffice 1.01 still opens pretty quickly.
IE, Netscape, and Opera still open in a split-second.
And, yes, now I run Quake3 with all the settings cranked.
But this sorta of "gee whiz, that's cool" wore off in a couple of days.
Now I'm left with a pretty powerful system, but I'm at loss as to what it has actually improved. Maybe if I were doing a lot of coding, then the compilation speeds would jump significantly, but I guess since my main coding right now is writing a fairly small (only around 6,500 lines) text-adventure in INFORM, I haven't really seen the jump in compilation speeds I'd see if I were compiling hundreds of thousands of lines of code
So, I'm curious. I haven't tried NWN yet, so maybe that's the sort of high-powered cybercrank I need to get myself hooked on the slickmercury speeds of AXP 2000+ and Ti4600.
There's always the new Neocron (sp?) beta 4 out
Anyone?
Nope. I'm not lying.
I have a valid key but not a valid installation ID. Thus far -- last night and this morning -- it has stumped everyone.
Apparently, mine is the first case they've seen. I can't believe that, but that's what I'm being told.
I've read my MSDN key over 10 times in the past hour. They've verified the key, checked it, and even issued me a "temporary" key. Everything works, but *everything* fails when the installation ID is generated.
In fact, this "activation" is so anonymous that right now -- as of this morning -- Microsoft now has my name, address, email address, MSDN ID#, MSDN key, and a listing of each component in my computer.
How's that for "activation" anonymity?
And MS plans (apparently) to "bomb" any cracked installations of XP. (I gather some sort of cracked DLL or file monkeyed with the WPA and allowed for pseudo-activation.)
MS is still not clear about this. But I'm curious if MS finally got the hint and is now planning to keep a database of all "authentic" Windows XP keys. If this is the case, then I assume the various keygens won't work. (Or they'll work, but when it comes time to activate, you'll find that you don't actually have an "authentic" key.)
Slightly OT, but I thought I'd share my own XP activation experience. It happened last night and it bascially stumped Microsoft.
The short story goes something like this: I'm an MSDN subscriber. My MSDN subscription entitles me to Windows XP keys that will activate up to 10 pcs. So far so good.
Anyway, I go to the MSDN site, log in with my usual username and password. Generate my keys. Get my "10 activation" key for Office XP, Pro XP, Home XP.
Now, according to the license, these generated keys will activate 10 pcs for each application. (In other words, I can put WinXP Pro on my workstation at work and my workstation at home. This counts as two "activations" on two different PCs and is completely within the terms of the license. Each computer, of course, has to be for "development" purposes -- which, oddly enough, they are. My computer at home is actually a computer I use when I telecommute. And I develop on it. So, again, I'm completely within the terms of license agreement.)
Okay, so that's the background. Here's the good part: I install WinXP Pro on my home "work" workstation using the MSDN supplied key. (The copy of WinXP Pro I'm installing, BTW, is the ISO I downloaded from the MSDN site. The copy of Windows XP I'm legally entitled to according to the terms of my MSDN unverisal subscription.)
The MSDN issued key passes the first XP keycheck -- the check that appears before it actually installs. No complaints, install goes smoothly. I boot to the desktop. All's fine. Looks like it installed perfectly.
Except Windows tells me my key is no good.
But wait! It *took* the key when it asked for it, right? Yes. It took it.
I re-enter the key. (And, yes, I'm using the MSDN supplied key on the MSDN ISO -- not the volume license CD, the actual ISO downloaded from the MSDN site.)
Still says my key is no good. It then generates an installation ID -- an obscenely long number -- and tells me that I have to call the 1-888 toll-free activation center.
I call. I give my installation ID. Wait, I'm told, that's not the right installation ID. Generate another one.
I generate another installation ID. (There's a button that can do this when you install XP.)
I read it back. It's still not a valid installation ID.
The activation center guy said he never saw this happen before. Am I reading the correct ID? Did I transpose any digits?
Nope. It's all correct. Read it from right to left, he tells me. I do. Read it from left to right, he tells me. I do.
Wow, he says. I've never seen this before. You have a valid key, he tells me, but Windows is generating an *incorrect* installation ID.
I say, well, I don't care what's going on, I want this thing activated.
Pause. Sir? Can you read me the ID again?
I do. This is the sixth or seventh time I read the ID. Nope, he tells me. Still no good. He puts me on hold. I stay on hold. Sir, he tells me. I'm sorry. Sorry? We can't do anything. You what?
We've never seen this before.
You're kidding.
If you have a correct key, you should get a correct installation ID.
Yes, I say.
Can you read me your key?
I read it. Read it again. And again.
Sir?
Yes?
The key is correct.
I know the key is correct.
Can I put you on hold again?
So I sit and wait. And wait. All told, I've been "activating" for 30 minutes by this time.
Guy comes back on the phone. Sir? We can't do anything.
You're kidding.
He apologizes. He tells me again that he's never seen this happen. You're sure you're using a legit copy?
I explain my MSDN subscription (active, BTW), my MSDN key, my MSDN ISO download.
I'm sorry, he tells me. Try MSDN.
I call MSDN.
Go through the same thing.
Wow, the MSDN tech support guy says. I've never seen this before.
What now?
Good question, he tells me.
He puts me on hold. Consults with a manager.
Sir? There's nothing we can do.
Give me another key.
I can't. I don't have authorization.
Give me someone who has authorization.
We can't generate another key until the morning.
You're kidding. I'm stuck?
I'm afraid so. I've never seen this before, he says.
By this time I'm furious. I want this motherfucker activated.
Finally, the guy puts me on hold.
Sir? I've got a brand new copy of Windows Pro Retail. In my hands. I'm going to read you the key. But you didn't get this from me.
You're giving me another key?
You didn't get this from me, he repeats.
He reads the key. I read it back. That's all I can do, sir, he tells me.
I appreciate it. (Trying to stay calm.) Thank you.
I'm only doing this because you've got a problem we can't fix. You have a valid key, but it's not generating a valid installation ID.
By this time, over an hour has passed. I'm still trying to activate.
He has me enter the new key. I enter it. Try to activate. Comes up with a message: "This key has no more activations."
I wig out. You're fucking shitting me, I tell me. You're fucking shitting me.
Okay, he says. He explains that we'll have to wait until tomorrow morning to get the key re-activated. He'll make sure it gets re-activated first thing. But that's all we can do, he says. I can't do any more tonight.
I tell him that this -- my situation -- is why people pirate software. It's quicker to get a keygen and generate a phony key than to go through this, waste my time and waste my money.
He's sympathetic. I understand, he says. But we'll get this fixed.
Then: Sir?
Yes?
You didn't get that key from me.
Flash forward: right now. It's the next morning. I'm at my desk. I'm reading Slashdot. I'm on hold with Microsoft tech support. I've called three different tech supoort numbers this morning.
They cannot get my copy of Windows XP Pro activated. They cannot re-activate the "mystery" key that my friend last night gave me.
This is the first time they've seen this problem.
Can we get some more specifics? they ask me.
New hard drive, new CDROM, new motherboard. Everything is new.
They're mystified.
I'm still on hold. I'm reading Slashdot while I'm on hold.
A moment ago: Sir? Can you read your key?
I read it.
Yep, they tell me. That's a valid key. Wow. I've never seen this before.
There are only two real energy drinks:
Bawlz (the guanara stuff in the blue glass bottles) and Jolt Espresso flavored Cola (which is absolutely killer -- once you get used to the very strong espresso/cola taste.)
Everything else is for pussies.
Although, yes, Water Joe might qualify as a third since it doesn't have all the sickly sweet sugar that all the other so-called drinks have.
But, I'm telling you: if you want a real buzz: drink a can of Jolt Espresso then make some real espresso with Water Joe. Your hands will shake, your eyelids will quiver, your heartrate will quicken, but you will have a buzz. And the buzz will last for a couple hours.
But when the buzz wears off. Watch out. You'll be cranky, irritable, and completely limp dickless.
Okay, you're right. It hasn't been around for long. I apologize. It just seemed strange to me that he thought it was some sort of conspiracy to click on MSN ads. I figured most people -- even if they don't like Slate -- at least have *heard* of Slate. But maybe not.
True, Slate is part of Microsoft. But it's by no means anything like the "astrology" section on MSN.com or whatever else MSN has on its portal to suck in clicks and generate revenue.
What are you, twelve years old?
Slate has been around for years. Almost as long as Salon (if not longer.)
Michael Kinsley used to edit it. (The same Kinsley who used to sit off to the side of Buckley's _Firing Line_ and goad good ol' Bill with nuggets o' thought.)
Wait, if you don't know Slate, you probably have no idea who W F Buckley is either, right? Or his National Review?
Last time I saw WFB was on Charlie Rose. WFB hosting for Rose. My god. What a painful experience that was.
Anyway, do yourself a favor. Even if you think NR is fulla shit and WFB is fulla shit then hop on over to (a) Slate (occasionally), (b) National Review (occasionally), and (c) the New Republic (occasionally).
You don't need to agree with the views -- but dear god, my boy, get yourself at least a respectable smidgeon of political knowledge -- and awareness of the "standard" political rags -- so you can refrain from posting bizarre stuff like "What is this Slate thing?"
Why is hardware based encryption impractible to crack?
... I think I missed that one ...
And "dynamic" -- what does "dynamic" mean in this context? That the CD has a little ethernet connection and requires you to plug it into an internet connection before playing it?
This reminds me of the organic DVDs promised a couple years ago. Rip the special plastic off the DVD and it begins decaying. After 72 hours, the DVD is unplayable. It was touted as revolutionizing the DVD rental business model.
Yeah, what a revolution! Wait
Maybe it's just me, but does it dawn on no one -- at least no one at the RIAA and perhaps the MPAA (Jack "Maddog ... Grrrrrrr!" Valenti in particular) that they (and by "they" I mean the RIAA and the MPAA) are slowly destroying the promise (so-called, of course) of digital technology?
All this stuff -- from half-assed watermarking, to government-sanctioned hack attacks on 14 year-old Kazaa users, threatening to throw them in federal high security lockups -- all this stuff is destroying what it's attempting to preserve.
Yeah, but the Crossroads with Ralph Macchio (Karate Kid) is pretty cool. It's definitely worth more than the Crossroads with Britney.
...
... GRrrrrrrr!" Valenti's ivory golf clubs and matching bath towels.
...)
BTW, this is off-topic, but
Today is a sad day. My Oscar Goldman action figure with the exploding briefcase finally tumbled from my computer. Oscar hit his head. The head cracked.
The briefcase still explodes, though.
Steve Austin, who for 26 years always rode shotgun with Oscar Goldman, has now moved two inches to the right on my "bionic" shelf in order to fill the space that Oscar left. I've still got the Jamie Sommers action figure, the Bionic Transport and Repair Station, and the Maskatron figure. (Although Maskatron has lost his mask.)
Anyway, if you don't know Oscar Goldamn and his exploding briefcase, you're too young.
Now, for something on-topic:
The obvious question -- if this NET act is the law that puts 14 and 15 year olds in the super-high security, DEFCON 1 lockups in Colorado and Illinois for swapping N'Sync and Britney -- is how, exactly, is the $1000 figure calculated?
I'm sure a case could made that each song on each CD -- on the millions of CDs -- are actually worth in excess of one thousand dollars -- each! -- due to distribution costs, royalty payments, hotel bills for executives, Hilary Rosen's swank house in the Hamptons (the price for which has surely been amortized over the millions of Britney CDs littering the land), and MPAA Jack "Maddog
(And no, I have no idea if Hillary has a house in the Hamptons or Maddog Jack has ivory golf clubs
Then how do you determine whether or not an intrusion into your network is a "legitimate" RIAA incursion or simply a hacker?
If the RIAA starts doing this -- attacking P2P networks -- then they'll *have* to have some sort of legitimate (again, I have no idea what this means in this context) credential. They'll either have to attack from a permitted domain (in which case, I assume, ISPs could easily block the domain) or have some sort of attack methodology (again, easily blocked, I assume, once you know what they're doing.)
Plus, this makes you wonder about RIAA sub-contractors -- agencies working for the RIAA and engaged in these attacks. Are these groups allowed to carry on the attacks under the aegis of the RIAA?
"No, we're not actually the RIAA, but we work for them, sir."
And wouldn't this suddenly become the number-one-most-attractive-security-loophole? Get employed by the RIAA as a "piracy stormtrooper" and suddenly everything is permitted.
You and Duke Nukem Forever, huh?
How about putting a demo of your weekend project up on your website so we can take a look at it?
You do if you borrow -- or rent -- it from a library.
Bolo, hands down, rocked.
I remember playing Bolo in the University of Michigan's massive "fishbowl" computer lab around 1993. And I remember Bolo sent the entire support staff into a frenzy: everyone was playing it.
Of course, those were the days when the lab consisted of hundreds of PowerMac 6100's but only a handful of Windoze boxen.
Anyway, Stuart, if you're reading this: Bolo was (is?) a fantastically cool game. Many hours when I shoulda been working were spent tooling around in top-down tanks, pummelling pillboxes.
Slightly, off-topic, but I'm afraid there's a new generation of comp-sci students out there who missed out on the glory days of Bolo. (Of course, I get misty-eyed when I hear someone mention TRS-80s and Z80 assembly language, but that's another story -- and another era missed out by today's new generation of computer hot-shots. Not to mention the whole mid-80's coin-op video game revolution. To think, there's a whole bunch of folks who don't know what it's like stack a row of quarters on the top panel of a Pac Man or Donkey Kong stand-up game...)
Well, the problem with this line of reasoning -- comparing something like Napster to so-called "great" political achievements -- is that I'm not certain Napster is pushing any philosophical, civil, or ethical envelopes. Legal, maybe -- but that's about it.
It's about information sharing, yes. And I'll agree that information sharing is important. But in the grand scheme of things, I'm pretty certain information sharing is not in the same league as civil rights or human freedom. In fact, I *know* it's not the same league -- much as some folks wish it to were so.
We're still too close to the Napster "revolution" (so-called) to know what exactly happened, but my guess is not much. Not much happened.
On a more personal note, I'm repulsed by the notion that "Napster" is in the same league as slavery. It's not. Nor is it anything like a legitimate "freedom" struggle. Information is not the same thing as a human being, and the only real "struggle" at work with this P2P stuff is a struggle for control.
There's nothing particularly interesting, provocative, or important in a struggle that pits big corporate greed against so-called "innocent" youth. The demise of Napster is not even a "triumph of capitalism." Nor is it a "triumph of global corporate control."
It's really a triumph of nothing. And in light of human rights abuses across the globe -- including abuses here in America -- I'm not sure we can really derive any "lesson" from the demise of Napster except that, well, there's other, more important battles to fight.
P2P is not a revolution -- not in the sense, at least, that Napster-advocates would like it to be.
The only "triumph" at work with Napster is the "triumph" of the corporate lawyers. And unless you're one of them, pulling a paycheck from all of this, it's not much of a triumph at all.
The solution for copy protection is simple: if content creators are worried about illegal copies, then don't release anything you don't want copied.
They could say, "Well, we've got some great new CDs ready to go. But you won't hear them. Trust us, though, they're great."
This would drastically cut down on the crap that inundates the marketplace,
BTW. It would be a win-win solution for everyone: the RIAA wouldn't have to worry about a CD being copied, consumers would be saved from having to listen to crap, and there'd be less choices that pop up when I search on KazaaLite.
Or, it might be simply the idea that the original idea wasn't simply a film 'targetted at kids'.
I've written about this before here, but the original Star Wars came out at a pretty unique time in the history of American cinema. The films of the 1970's were quite different than the films of the 90's or of the 00's of this new century.
Obviously, it's easy to point to something like Vietnam and say that, well, Star Wars -- the original -- was a pretty canny, subtle response to a culture still mired in the complex politics of the 60's and 70's.
But Star Wars -- the original -- was also whimsical. It was Lucas' response, I think, to growing up in the 50's and being submerged in the California car culture. Sort of a weird, whimsical amalgam of the Cold War mentality of the 50's and 60's mixed in with the savagery of Vietnam but touched here and there with odd bits of folly and idealism. (Sort of like a simplistic reading of the war in Vietnam -- folly, idealism, savagery.)
Star Wars, I think, was aimed at "kids" the same way that Lucas's previous film 'American Graffiti' was -- it was about kids, really, but it wasn't specifically aimed at them.
My "reading" of Star Wars has always been that it's about kids in a complex world. Han and Luke are a couple of hot-rodders, essentially. And they're both going after the girl (one more than the other, of course, but no one can deny the allure of Luke's almost asexual naivete.)
I suspect the film is a mirror of Lucas's own inner-self. When he made Star Wars he was still a big kid that didn't want to give up (or give in) to the emerging complexities of culture. In many ways, Star Wars is an amazingly naive and gentle film -- nothing like 'Return of the Jedi', for example, which is the first film of the series that has (finally) become 'aware of Star Wars.' RotJ is a film aware of itself. Not so with Star Wars (a joy ride) and most definitely not so with ESB (still naive, still riding fast, but showing signs of dark awareness. You could certainly make the argument that ESB is the end of the joyride. From RotJ on it's the legal speed limit all the way)
But you wonder if Lucas had much of a choice. I think the more interesting route for Ep 3 to go would be dark, violent, and absurd. Think of Kurosawa's 'Ran', for example. A film made late in K's life -- but a masterpiece. Filled with savagery and darkness (even though it's one of the most colorful films you'll ever see projected on a screen.) It's quite disturbing, Ran, and is really -- when you think of it -- an astonishing achievement so late in K's life.
It always amazes me to realize that Lucas, Spielburg, Coppola, Fellini, Kurosawa, and Scorsese were all very close -- close in vision, close in their desire for "epic sweep", and close personally. Lucas and Spielburg helped Kurosawa finance several of K's later films, and there's some great shots of Fellini walking and talking with Spielburg in Rome. What's distressing, however, is that as Kurosawa and Fellini aged, their visions became more rareified (if that's the right word.)
One look at Fellini's 'And the Ship Sails On...' and your heart breaks. It's a wonderful film -- much like K's 'Ran' -- and you see these bright-hot glimmers of genius and power shining through. But Lucas seems to be retreating -- afraid to tackle the difficult problems. The excuse is that, well, he really can't: Star Wars is a marketing machine and the marketing is aimed at kids. Taco Bell needs their DooKoo Pootie cups, McDonalds needs their Annie Happy Meals.
But just as Bruno Bettleheim talks about the need for dark fairy tales in the growth of child's mind, Lucas shouldn't be afraid to tackle the real dark stuff.
Not every scene.
You can still glimpse the towers in spidey's goggles.