WinXP has a CD ripper built into it. Think about that, a CD ripper built into the operating system.
Jeffrey B. Lotspiech at Stanford Tommorrow!
on
CPRM Voted Down
·
· Score: 5
> Computer Systems Laboratory Colloquium
> 4:15PM, Wednesday, April 4, 2001
> NEC Auditorium, Gates Computer Science Building B03
>
> Title: Content Protection for Recordable Media
>
> Speaker: Jeffrey B. Lotspiech
> IBM Almaden Research Center
>
> About the talk:
> Content Protection for Recordable Media, or CPRM, is a technology
> developed by IBM, Intel, Matsushita, and Toshiba to provide copy
> protection on portable media. The technology allows a recorder to
> record encrypted content, and a player to play it back, without
> having any keys in common. The media acts as a passive oracle to
> allow the different boxes to come to the same cryptographic key.
> In contrast, previous copy protection technologies like the one
> used for DVD video, depended on shared keys between the mastering
> studio and the players, with predictable results. As soon as a
> 16-year-old in Norway found one shared key, the system was
> effectively broken: there was no way to exclude the broken key
> from the system without hurting too many innocent consumers. In
> contrast, CPRM can survive thousands of independent attacks, and
> exclude millions of circumvention devices, without any chance of
> innocent consumers being affected.
>
> Recently, articles have appeared in the press that CPRM will be
> standardized on all PC hard drives. This has fueled Orwellian
> mages of a Big Brother chip on your PC that will decide whether
> your files are worthy of being copied. This is complete nonsense.
> CPRM would never be standardized, nor have we ever proposed such
> a thing. CPRM strength is portability and interchangeability and
> it is mismatch for fixed hard drive. It is completely passive,
> requires no hardware, and can only be exploited by newly-designed
> applications. It cannot possibly affect existing files or
> applications. How these myths came about, and persist, was an
> object lesson for a media-naive researcher.
>
> About the speaker:
>
> Jeff Lotspiech is the manager of the Content Protection
> Technology Group at the IBM Almaden Research Center. He has a BS
> and MS in Computer Science from MIT, 1972. He has been working on
> content protection technologies, both the Internet and media, for
> the last six years.
>
> Contact information:
>
> Jeffrey B. Lotspiech
> IBM Almaden Research Center DPEM/B3
> 650 Harry Road
> San Jose, CA 95120
> 408-927-1851
> 408-927-3497
> lotspiech@almaden.ibm.com
I see in a few months people will start to admit that perforce cant do what they want either and then we'll end up with some other crap, rather than just making what we want, submitting the changes back to the cvs tree and letting them fix the damn bugs.
My company constantly bitches about CVS. We are about to move to Perforce and they are putting together a list of requirements that it will have to meet. So basically I ask: Why not take the requirements and fix cvs? Nah, we'd rather pay some company for a product we cant fix and then bitch when it doesn't meet our requirements.
Slow menus. I dont see it pal. If you want stuff to bitch about mozilla, there's plenty of things. Like the search box opening at the top left of the screen instead of in the middle, the status bar that always displays "resolving host" even though there's all this code in mozilla to cache host resolution, the back button that refuses to go back to dynamically generated pages that use post data (when I press back I want the exact page that I was on, I dont want you to connect back to the server and download another one!), the default of open new window at homepage (I always turn that to last visited), the fact that the key bindings are not the same as netscape 4.x (yer, that's a triviality but why did we move to microsoft's key bindings?) The list goes on. Speed is definitely not something that I feel, but all these trivial things add up, and can start a guy considering fixing stuff.
not even, many many examples have been made. Microsoft is never to blame. It's those evil hackers! You gots to think about it the other way. Consider attacking Microsoft's internal network. Just make it impossible to get any work done. Strangle hold.
bingo. Now say goodbye to your lawyer and put the cell phone down. You have no legal recourse.. what you can do is not buy the crap (pirate it, run linux, I dont care) and go hang out at your local software selling shop (what do they call them anyways) and tell people not to buy it. "Hey pal, what ya doing?" "I'm buying this copy of winMe" "Oh no, you want this mandrake cd." "no I dont, get away from me you freak" "ok ok, here's a burned copy of me, and just incase you change your mind it's double sided, linux on the back". Now that is activism.
downloaded the lastest mozilla build? No, of course not, you're opinion is completely based on last month's releases. Shit, I'm almost tempted to actually submit a patch or three, it's getting that good.
see, if you thought about that you could have come up with a better insult. One that exemplified your knowledge of statistics.. see the correct insult is "that's because they didn't poll you".. think about it.
See there seems to be this assumption, be it whether you're talking about my government or you're talking about Microsoft, that there is one hive mind collective that is making these things happen. There isn't, there is a whole bunch of different people with different opinions fighting for some middle ground. Some folk would have it that anyone who read porn get dragged out into the street and killed. Others would just prefer to lock them all up. Still others would prefer to regulate the companies that provide services to porn merchants. Others would prefer to classify but not censor. Still others would prefer that there was no regulation at all. Is there any suprise that there is a difference of opinion? There's no hypocracy here because the government is not an individual. So the reporting of this story (should it need to be reported here) could simply have said "wow, a win for freedom" or "xyz inquiry decent against censorship laws" but no, we're supposed to think that there's some fundimental flaw in the logic that what is banned on tv should be banned on the internet because the government cant agree with itself. In the mean time, Timothy just keeps on baggin'.au instead of doing anything to sway the opinion of law makers.
Fuck I hate you Tim. Why dont you think before you post this shit? Beastiality ok in Australia? You're a prick.. this is my country you're talking about. Someone finally stands up and says people have a right to say whatever they want to each other whether it be over government computers or not and you post it as being backward. Grow up.
what makes you think they would see the same bandwidth of light as us. What makes you think they would percieve the world even remotely the same as us? Perhaps to them light is not the thing to see by, perhaps they respond to gravitational vibrations and they can see straight through us. To them the connections in our brain that make us the engram for "chair" look exactly the same as a "real chair".
Slashdot Mirror
WinXP has a CD ripper built into it. Think about that, a CD ripper built into the operating system.
> Computer Systems Laboratory Colloquium
> 4:15PM, Wednesday, April 4, 2001
> NEC Auditorium, Gates Computer Science Building B03
>
> Title: Content Protection for Recordable Media
>
> Speaker: Jeffrey B. Lotspiech
> IBM Almaden Research Center
>
> About the talk:
> Content Protection for Recordable Media, or CPRM, is a technology
> developed by IBM, Intel, Matsushita, and Toshiba to provide copy
> protection on portable media. The technology allows a recorder to
> record encrypted content, and a player to play it back, without
> having any keys in common. The media acts as a passive oracle to
> allow the different boxes to come to the same cryptographic key.
> In contrast, previous copy protection technologies like the one
> used for DVD video, depended on shared keys between the mastering
> studio and the players, with predictable results. As soon as a
> 16-year-old in Norway found one shared key, the system was
> effectively broken: there was no way to exclude the broken key
> from the system without hurting too many innocent consumers. In
> contrast, CPRM can survive thousands of independent attacks, and
> exclude millions of circumvention devices, without any chance of
> innocent consumers being affected.
>
> Recently, articles have appeared in the press that CPRM will be
> standardized on all PC hard drives. This has fueled Orwellian
> mages of a Big Brother chip on your PC that will decide whether
> your files are worthy of being copied. This is complete nonsense.
> CPRM would never be standardized, nor have we ever proposed such
> a thing. CPRM strength is portability and interchangeability and
> it is mismatch for fixed hard drive. It is completely passive,
> requires no hardware, and can only be exploited by newly-designed
> applications. It cannot possibly affect existing files or
> applications. How these myths came about, and persist, was an
> object lesson for a media-naive researcher.
>
> About the speaker:
>
> Jeff Lotspiech is the manager of the Content Protection
> Technology Group at the IBM Almaden Research Center. He has a BS
> and MS in Computer Science from MIT, 1972. He has been working on
> content protection technologies, both the Internet and media, for
> the last six years.
>
> Contact information:
>
> Jeffrey B. Lotspiech
> IBM Almaden Research Center DPEM/B3
> 650 Harry Road
> San Jose, CA 95120
> 408-927-1851
> 408-927-3497
> lotspiech@almaden.ibm.com
See you there!
I see in a few months people will start to admit that perforce cant do what they want either and then we'll end up with some other crap, rather than just making what we want, submitting the changes back to the cvs tree and letting them fix the damn bugs.
My company constantly bitches about CVS. We are about to move to Perforce and they are putting together a list of requirements that it will have to meet. So basically I ask: Why not take the requirements and fix cvs? Nah, we'd rather pay some company for a product we cant fix and then bitch when it doesn't meet our requirements.
Slow menus. I dont see it pal. If you want stuff to bitch about mozilla, there's plenty of things. Like the search box opening at the top left of the screen instead of in the middle, the status bar that always displays "resolving host" even though there's all this code in mozilla to cache host resolution, the back button that refuses to go back to dynamically generated pages that use post data (when I press back I want the exact page that I was on, I dont want you to connect back to the server and download another one!), the default of open new window at homepage (I always turn that to last visited), the fact that the key bindings are not the same as netscape 4.x (yer, that's a triviality but why did we move to microsoft's key bindings?) The list goes on. Speed is definitely not something that I feel, but all these trivial things add up, and can start a guy considering fixing stuff.
No, that is exactly the reasoning. Unless you can do better, keep your trap shut.
did you post this on the last article about this or are you just so unoriginal as to get a redundant when you're already on score 0?
IE is a damn good product. It's hard to believe it's a Microsoft one until shit like this happens.
hack places, get the cops to trace them to your computer who dont think twice about impounding it for a year.
not even, many many examples have been made. Microsoft is never to blame. It's those evil hackers! You gots to think about it the other way. Consider attacking Microsoft's internal network. Just make it impossible to get any work done. Strangle hold.
wow, I thought they were inticing people to upgrade their software by constantly crashing.
bingo. Now say goodbye to your lawyer and put the cell phone down. You have no legal recourse.. what you can do is not buy the crap (pirate it, run linux, I dont care) and go hang out at your local software selling shop (what do they call them anyways) and tell people not to buy it. "Hey pal, what ya doing?" "I'm buying this copy of winMe" "Oh no, you want this mandrake cd." "no I dont, get away from me you freak" "ok ok, here's a burned copy of me, and just incase you change your mind it's double sided, linux on the back". Now that is activism.
do you think all them kids who used to type in CAPS back in the day are all lawyers now? It would explain a lot.
You say you got a real solution, we'd all like to see the plan.
there are many little things that piss me off, and some of them I have to blame on X I must admit.
dare I say that their software is crap and their windows update program exemplifies that (I've used that word twice today).
downloaded the lastest mozilla build? No, of course not, you're opinion is completely based on last month's releases. Shit, I'm almost tempted to actually submit a patch or three, it's getting that good.
if only you didn't occasionally refuse to scroll the screen with the cursor keys, I'd make you my wife.
see, if you thought about that you could have come up with a better insult. One that exemplified your knowledge of statistics.. see the correct insult is "that's because they didn't poll you".. think about it.
But it's good beer man :) Exactly, so bascially Timothy should put his nose back up his arse and stop raggin' on our government.
See there seems to be this assumption, be it whether you're talking about my government or you're talking about Microsoft, that there is one hive mind collective that is making these things happen. There isn't, there is a whole bunch of different people with different opinions fighting for some middle ground. Some folk would have it that anyone who read porn get dragged out into the street and killed. Others would just prefer to lock them all up. Still others would prefer to regulate the companies that provide services to porn merchants. Others would prefer to classify but not censor. Still others would prefer that there was no regulation at all. Is there any suprise that there is a difference of opinion? There's no hypocracy here because the government is not an individual. So the reporting of this story (should it need to be reported here) could simply have said "wow, a win for freedom" or "xyz inquiry decent against censorship laws" but no, we're supposed to think that there's some fundimental flaw in the logic that what is banned on tv should be banned on the internet because the government cant agree with itself. In the mean time, Timothy just keeps on baggin' .au instead of doing anything to sway the opinion of law makers.
Fuck I hate you Tim. Why dont you think before you post this shit? Beastiality ok in Australia? You're a prick.. this is my country you're talking about. Someone finally stands up and says people have a right to say whatever they want to each other whether it be over government computers or not and you post it as being backward. Grow up.
what makes you think they would see the same bandwidth of light as us. What makes you think they would percieve the world even remotely the same as us? Perhaps to them light is not the thing to see by, perhaps they respond to gravitational vibrations and they can see straight through us. To them the connections in our brain that make us the engram for "chair" look exactly the same as a "real chair".
Gimme some of the crouching tiger hidden dragon lovin'.
they do say "performing artists" on the page.