AACS which was fully cracked and now completely useless.
AACS hasn't been "fully cracked" -- the encryption scheme remains unbroken. It's just proving impossible to keep people from extracting the keys once they're in memory -- which they have to be to decrypt the movie. Software players have evidently gotten extremely sneaky at obfuscating keys, yet it's not enough.
So AACS isn't really cracked. It's just trying to do what can't be done.
Exactly. If vinyl actually contains more information than digital, then there's no reason why recordings on vinyl couldn't be compressed as much -- or more.
...But I'll take XP on the desktop over Ubuntu (or Linux) any day. Ubuntu 7.10 is a pain to install, setup and use compared to XP. Few things I need "just work" in Linux.
Heh...I've installed both recently, and nothing stands out as being easier or more difficult on either.
And considering that i think XP is the best OS Microsoft has yet produced, that's saying something.
There are a lot of comments here crossing the line from "the police have to be reasonable" to "fight the power!" Airport security exists for a reason, and while some of the steps they've taken are less "necessity" than "ridiculous", questioning the authority and need for airport personnel to implement security in the first place is pretty nuts.
Heh. I did. I'm an electronics engineer and have been an electronics and computer hobbyist for more than 25 years. I own prototyping boards and have used them many times.
And if I'd seen that in an airport, I would have called security.
I guess the fact is...I'd not have given a second thought to wearing something like that myself?!?
Yeah, but to an airport???
I saw a picture of that shirt, and in context, it caught my breath. There are lots of examples of the police over-reacting (Boston, etc.); this isn't one of them. I'm an electronics engineer and hobbyist, I'm very familiar with prototyping boards and had I seen that in an airport, I would have thought it was a functional, improvised electronic device designed to do something (besides look interesting). And why would someone wear a functional, improvised electronic device to an airport?
It's almost like shouting "thyre!" in a crowded theater and wondering why everyone's upset. The shirt's cool, but you'd have to ignore the whole reason airport security exists to think wearing it to one is a good idea.
If they say everyone can download 30,000 songs... and everyone downloads 20,000 songs of 3MB each (60GB)... their network will screech to a halt too. Specifying the amount in terms like this doesn't protect them from people gaming the overcommitment level if everyone does it... what protects them is that most people have no interest in doing that, no matter what the level is.
Bingo.
In my opinion, they are stating their limit in this way because it sounds ridiculous. Who the hell downloads 30,000 songs per month? On the other hand, if you're streaming video or sharing files (legally or otherwise), it's quite likely you don't have any idea how much bandwidth you're using, even though such usage is consistent with Comcast's advertising of how their service is useful for high-bandwidth applications.
This "clarification" is simply meant to confuse the issue, keeping the impression intact that their service is good for bandwidth-intensive applications. The truth is, it's very likely those bandwidth-intensive applications are what are getting people into trouble.
This is just a Web site and of course it changes all the time, but I defy you to show me where Comcast advertises their service as "unlimited" without any clearly visible disclaimer.
I didn't say they do advertise their service as unlimited -- but they evidently used to:
I wasn't aware that they'd stopped doing so until stories of Comcast cutting people off came up. What's more, the reaction from many people, whenever one of these stories makes the rounds, is invariably "I thought they advertised their service as unlimited!" It's pretty clear Comcast has carefully avoided dispelling the impression that they still provide an unlimited service--something that would be spoiled if they DID, in fact, publish a limit.
If Comcast really did want to provide perspective of their limits that are consistent with their high-bandwidth advertising, they wouldn't use "sending emails" as a reference.
Hi kiddies! No, you can't have infinity bandwith. Not yours.
Heh...given the fact that Comcast advertises their service as good for high-bandwidth applications, and the fact that they continue to be coy about the actual limit (when they used to advertise their service as "unlimited", to boot), a good case could be made that Comcast wants people to believe "infinity bandwidth" is, in fact, what they're providing.
Obviously they aren't going to set a hard limit. If they say everyone can download 90GB a month and everyone does that, their network will screech to a halt.
And why would everyone suddenly start downloading 90GB per month if they thought the service were limited, whereas they don't do so when most people evidently think it's unlimited?
The truth is, most people very likely use the service not in terms of bandwidth limits, but in terms of applications. Some applications are high-bandwidth (such as the applications Comcast advertises its service as being good for) and some are low (such as the applications Comcast uses to state its usage limits). I think it's pretty unlikely users will suddenly discover high-bandwidth applications if they think Comcast has usage caps. In fact, it's probably fairly irrelevant to actual usage for most people (but would help high-bandwidth application users to limit their use).
Of course, stating caps would destroy the myth that Comcast's service is unlimited, and probably do damage to its advertising that its service is good for bandwidth-intensive applications.
I don't think Comcast advertises "unlimited use" anymore.
Evidently, they used to, and the fact that so many people believe they still do is testament to how hard Comcast has tried to leave that impression in place, while covering their behinds legally.
They've issued such "clarifications" in the past, and the mere fact that they are providing any numbers at all means they do have a limit they could provide, and don't because they don't want most people to realize Comcast's service is, in fact, limited.
Comcast advertises their service as good for high-bandwidth applications. The fact that they define limits in terms of impossible levels of use of low-bandwidth applications really puts the lie to their advertising, IMHO.
I've heard this canard trotted out by Comcast and its apologists time and again. In my opinion, it's silly -- if people aren't using high-bandwidth applications when they believe the service is unlimited, why would they suddenly discover an interest in doing so when they know there's a limit?
Comcast has never provided any evidence for this excuse, and I suspect they never will.
They don't give an actual limit for marketing reasons.
Up until a couple of years back, Comcast used to advertise their service as "unlimited". They quietly stopped doing that, and certainly never made any effort to inform people that they were no longer advertising an "unlimited" service. But I think it's more than just neglecting to tell customers and potential customers about the shift.
When most people are told about Comcast cutting people off, they still think Comcast is advertising an unlimited service. I believe Comcast benefits from this impression. At the same time, they can claim, when push comes to shove, that they don't advertise an "unlimited service" and feign ignorance as to from where that impression comes. It's the best of both worlds.
Put simply, if Comcast published a limit, it would destroy the myth that their service is unlimited -- a myth from which they still benefit immensely. They'd much rather take the PR hit of a few people complaining of cut-off's by claiming these people were "abusing" the service.
Very interesting to know there are other algorithms which might resist quantum computing attacks.
It's also very good that the cutting edge of this technology is (presumably) being done and reported on publicly, so people will know if and when they can no longer protect their communications using certain methods.
Antipolygraph.org makes no pretense as to being "unbiased"--they're an advocacy group. But the information they provide is scrupulously documented and referenced, and it comes from some of the most credentialed scientific sources. They've done their homework.
There is no security risk in posting this information since if you're requiring the records be disclosed, then you're probably doing a full background check and maybe even a lie detector -- "but i dont have any records" isn't going to work.
I can tell you that if polygraphs are required for government positions in general, you're going to lose the vast majority of competent government staff. Polygraphs are snake oil. They're interrogation props with huge false-positive problems and a stigma if you "fail" one (not to mention a false sense of security towards those who don't).
As someone who's gone through three of them, I'll tell you that if I have any choice in the matter, I'll never submit to one again. And yes, I'll look for a new job myself before doing so.
This is true--in fact, most agencies don't use the polygraph. And I can tell you first hand that the NSA polygraph does NOT routinely ask about sexual orientation. Evidently, they used to, but no longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm...but is Nigerian law the only law of interest here? Is it in accordance with US law for a US company to bribe officials of a foreign government?
Are you from Canada?
AACS hasn't been "fully cracked" -- the encryption scheme remains unbroken. It's just proving impossible to keep people from extracting the keys once they're in memory -- which they have to be to decrypt the movie. Software players have evidently gotten extremely sneaky at obfuscating keys, yet it's not enough.
So AACS isn't really cracked. It's just trying to do what can't be done.
I have no where near an exact understanding, but I did read that they wrote their own virtual machine to do the job.
For what it's worth.
I assume you mean vinyl record?
Regardless, there's no reason whatsoever that all the sounds on a vinyl CD couldn't be of similar loudness -- the result of range compression.
This guy doesn't know what he is talking about.
Exactly. If vinyl actually contains more information than digital, then there's no reason why recordings on vinyl couldn't be compressed as much -- or more.
...But I'll take XP on the desktop over Ubuntu (or Linux) any day. Ubuntu 7.10 is a pain to install, setup and use compared to XP. Few things I need "just work" in Linux.
Heh...I've installed both recently, and nothing stands out as being easier or more difficult on either.
And considering that i think XP is the best OS Microsoft has yet produced, that's saying something.
Absolutely not. Mere lab-quality bench instruments cannot sense the magic imbued in the cables.
The first line of defense in airport security.
There are a lot of comments here crossing the line from "the police have to be reasonable" to "fight the power!" Airport security exists for a reason, and while some of the steps they've taken are less "necessity" than "ridiculous", questioning the authority and need for airport personnel to implement security in the first place is pretty nuts.
Umm.. did you look at the picture of it?
Heh. I did. I'm an electronics engineer and have been an electronics and computer hobbyist for more than 25 years. I own prototyping boards and have used them many times.
And if I'd seen that in an airport, I would have called security.
Yeah, but to an airport???
I saw a picture of that shirt, and in context, it caught my breath. There are lots of examples of the police over-reacting (Boston, etc.); this isn't one of them. I'm an electronics engineer and hobbyist, I'm very familiar with prototyping boards and had I seen that in an airport, I would have thought it was a functional, improvised electronic device designed to do something (besides look interesting). And why would someone wear a functional, improvised electronic device to an airport?
It's almost like shouting "thyre!" in a crowded theater and wondering why everyone's upset. The shirt's cool, but you'd have to ignore the whole reason airport security exists to think wearing it to one is a good idea.
If they say everyone can download 30,000 songs... and everyone downloads 20,000 songs of 3MB each (60GB)... their network will screech to a halt too. Specifying the amount in terms like this doesn't protect them from people gaming the overcommitment level if everyone does it... what protects them is that most people have no interest in doing that, no matter what the level is.
Bingo.
In my opinion, they are stating their limit in this way because it sounds ridiculous. Who the hell downloads 30,000 songs per month? On the other hand, if you're streaming video or sharing files (legally or otherwise), it's quite likely you don't have any idea how much bandwidth you're using, even though such usage is consistent with Comcast's advertising of how their service is useful for high-bandwidth applications.
This "clarification" is simply meant to confuse the issue, keeping the impression intact that their service is good for bandwidth-intensive applications. The truth is, it's very likely those bandwidth-intensive applications are what are getting people into trouble.
This is just a Web site and of course it changes all the time, but I defy you to show me where Comcast advertises their service as "unlimited" without any clearly visible disclaimer.
I didn't say they do advertise their service as unlimited -- but they evidently used to:
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7940
I wasn't aware that they'd stopped doing so until stories of Comcast cutting people off came up. What's more, the reaction from many people, whenever one of these stories makes the rounds, is invariably "I thought they advertised their service as unlimited!" It's pretty clear Comcast has carefully avoided dispelling the impression that they still provide an unlimited service--something that would be spoiled if they DID, in fact, publish a limit.
If Comcast really did want to provide perspective of their limits that are consistent with their high-bandwidth advertising, they wouldn't use "sending emails" as a reference.
Hi kiddies! No, you can't have infinity bandwith. Not yours.
Heh...given the fact that Comcast advertises their service as good for high-bandwidth applications, and the fact that they continue to be coy about the actual limit (when they used to advertise their service as "unlimited", to boot), a good case could be made that Comcast wants people to believe "infinity bandwidth" is, in fact, what they're providing.
Obviously they aren't going to set a hard limit. If they say everyone can download 90GB a month and everyone does that, their network will screech to a halt.
And why would everyone suddenly start downloading 90GB per month if they thought the service were limited, whereas they don't do so when most people evidently think it's unlimited?
The truth is, most people very likely use the service not in terms of bandwidth limits, but in terms of applications. Some applications are high-bandwidth (such as the applications Comcast advertises its service as being good for) and some are low (such as the applications Comcast uses to state its usage limits). I think it's pretty unlikely users will suddenly discover high-bandwidth applications if they think Comcast has usage caps. In fact, it's probably fairly irrelevant to actual usage for most people (but would help high-bandwidth application users to limit their use).
Of course, stating caps would destroy the myth that Comcast's service is unlimited, and probably do damage to its advertising that its service is good for bandwidth-intensive applications.
I don't think Comcast advertises "unlimited use" anymore.
Evidently, they used to, and the fact that so many people believe they still do is testament to how hard Comcast has tried to leave that impression in place, while covering their behinds legally.
They've issued such "clarifications" in the past, and the mere fact that they are providing any numbers at all means they do have a limit they could provide, and don't because they don't want most people to realize Comcast's service is, in fact, limited.
Comcast advertises their service as good for high-bandwidth applications. The fact that they define limits in terms of impossible levels of use of low-bandwidth applications really puts the lie to their advertising, IMHO.
I've heard this canard trotted out by Comcast and its apologists time and again. In my opinion, it's silly -- if people aren't using high-bandwidth applications when they believe the service is unlimited, why would they suddenly discover an interest in doing so when they know there's a limit?
Comcast has never provided any evidence for this excuse, and I suspect they never will.
They don't give an actual limit for marketing reasons.
Up until a couple of years back, Comcast used to advertise their service as "unlimited". They quietly stopped doing that, and certainly never made any effort to inform people that they were no longer advertising an "unlimited" service. But I think it's more than just neglecting to tell customers and potential customers about the shift.
When most people are told about Comcast cutting people off, they still think Comcast is advertising an unlimited service. I believe Comcast benefits from this impression. At the same time, they can claim, when push comes to shove, that they don't advertise an "unlimited service" and feign ignorance as to from where that impression comes. It's the best of both worlds.
Put simply, if Comcast published a limit, it would destroy the myth that their service is unlimited -- a myth from which they still benefit immensely. They'd much rather take the PR hit of a few people complaining of cut-off's by claiming these people were "abusing" the service.
Very interesting to know there are other algorithms which might resist quantum computing attacks.
It's also very good that the cutting edge of this technology is (presumably) being done and reported on publicly, so people will know if and when they can no longer protect their communications using certain methods.
Antipolygraph.org makes no pretense as to being "unbiased"--they're an advocacy group. But the information they provide is scrupulously documented and referenced, and it comes from some of the most credentialed scientific sources. They've done their homework.
Thanks for that.
I can tell you that if polygraphs are required for government positions in general, you're going to lose the vast majority of competent government staff. Polygraphs are snake oil. They're interrogation props with huge false-positive problems and a stigma if you "fail" one (not to mention a false sense of security towards those who don't).
As someone who's gone through three of them, I'll tell you that if I have any choice in the matter, I'll never submit to one again. And yes, I'll look for a new job myself before doing so.
This is true--in fact, most agencies don't use the polygraph. And I can tell you first hand that the NSA polygraph does NOT routinely ask about sexual orientation. Evidently, they used to, but no longer.
Exactly my point.