I agree with you, but I would like to point out that #2 alone is enough to eliminate DRM completely. If any generic unapproved player can read the data then that generic player could equally well output a DRM-free exact version.
What if the only restriction is that you own the device?
What if it comes with a jar of magic pixie dust?
Both are physically impossible. There can be no meaningful DRM t ll unless it is restricted to approved and properly crippled defective-by-design devices. If you actually could use it in any non-infringing way on any device you own, then you could trivially build your own device, or buy an appropriate device, witch could strip the DRM completely.
A particular implementation of DRM might work if it expands what you can legally do with your files (relative to the normal terms-of-service).
All POSSIBLE implementations of DRM diminish your ability to make non-infringing use of your files It is impossible to have any meaningful DRM at all without criminalizing valuable non-infringing products and criminalizing non-infringing technology and criminalizing non-infringing people.
DRM has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement. DRM is about criminalizing abilities. And the ability to engage in general non-infringing use inherently means the ability to infringe as well. Any product or technology that gives you the ability to engage in general non-infringing use inherently means the ability to infringe as well. Imagine trying to prohibit the ability to commit shoplifting - pretty much like chopping everyone's hands off.
This DRM seems to operate on the basis of restricting the ability to playback the content to the devices controlled by a customer
Maybe they are trying to make it seem that way, but it is 100% untrue. It is absolutely no different than any other DRM.
It completely throws copyright law out the window, and it only permits the ability to playback on approved devices with approved restricted functionality devices in the limited approved pre-defined manners. No different than any other DRM. Any device that they have not pre-approved is prohibited, and any usage or activity that they have not pre-approved is prohibited. All of copyright and all devices and all legal uses and all technology is forbidden.
It is not copyright infringement for me to build my own record player to play the record I bought. It is not copyright infringement for me to independently create an innovative new record player with valuable new features and for me to sell it to other people to benefit from, to play the records they bought on this great new innovative independent non-infringing player.
It is physically impossible to make any other form of DRM. It is physically impossible to make "invisible" DRM. It is physically impossible to make DRM that does not prohibit legal non-infringing activities. It is physically impossible to make DRM that does not prohibit Constitutionally established Fair Uses.
Yeah yeah yeah, their intent for DRM is to combat piracy, but no DRM past or future can ever prevent or diminish the effect of a single copy making it onto the internet. Regardless of their reasonable legitimate desire for DRM, the fact is that the primary effect is to prohibit/criminalize non-infringing activities, and event worse, to prohibit/criminalize non-infringing technologies and products and innovation.
I absolutely positively will NEVER buy their defective-by-design DRM crap, except perhaps for the explicit purpose of cracking it. And I'm getting so pissed off at this entire evil delusional anti-technology war they are waging that I want nothing more than to insert a live lobster up Mr Talal Shamoon's anatomy - sideways - and to explicitly rip any and all content 'protected' under this deluded system and post it on the internet so that legitimate buyers can make full and proper use of the content they bought.... and oh well everyone else can download it for free and I'm GLAD and I have absolutely ZERO sympathy left for these asshats. I am just sick and tired of the whole war and I just want them to financially and physically die already.
Bah. I probably shouldn't post on this stuff when I haven't slept in more than two days. I'm tired and fuzzy and I have no patients for these evil abusive delusional DRM companies and no patients for these evil abusive delusional media companies and no patients to be calm and reasonable and polite and self-sensor the flamage, and most of all my sleep deprived brain is enjoying the the whole live lobster thing way too much.
These people have the fuxored notion that they can, should, and will criminalize noninfringing technology, and that they can, should, and will imprision an innocent non-infringing school kid for up to five years for doing some non-infringing constitutionally protected Fair Use classroom media project in some unapproved way or with some unapproved devices. If someone want to bitch about my flamish tone, fine, but I want to hear them defend this. I want to hear them defend that criminalizing non-infringing technology is good or reasonable or even tolerable, defend that criminalizing non-infringing school kid clss project is good or reasonable or even tolerable. Just becase someone would like to prevent bank robberies does not make it ok for them to go around shooting innocent people in the attempt, does not make it ok for them to rollback and ban valuable-but-inconvenient technology itself, does not make it ok to prohibit free market competition in legitimate valuable innovative
This was the beginning of my lifelong dedication to criticizing inexcusable violations of the laws of physics by TV writers
The movie Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea had one of the biggest and most hysterical whoppers of all time. The plot is that the Van Allen radiation belts catch fire (scientifically silly, but we'll let that slide as standard sci-fi fare) steadily roasting the planet. The heroes are on a sub that has to race to a certain location to launch a nuclear missle at carefully calculated coordinates in the radiation belt to put out the fire and save the earth. The only route to get into position fast enough is to go under the north pole. As they race along the heat from the sky starts fracturing the polar sheet. They are deep in this sorta canyon, and these huge fragments of the polar sheet come crashing down battering them, crashing and bouncing off the ship, everyone on board is getting thrown around and everyone is terrified that the ship is going to be destroyed. Of course they survive, get to their coordinates, launch their nuclear missle and save the planet.
Many of you out there have probably seen the movie, and may even remember the scene. If you haven't, I've told you everything you need to know. Read over that scene and think about it. There is something wrong with it. Something very very wrong with it. I don't mean any of standard cheezy sci-fi stuff. Maybe with such short focused description that I gave people can pin down what's wrong, but almost no one watching the movie notices the error. It is really really really insanely bad. Howling laughter bad. Go back and see if you can spot it before reading the answer below.
.
.
.
Read every third letter, the letters in bold: etiaocnreis hdflulcmofwayptvbsgk
2.7 degrees Kelvin blackbody. That is the temperature of space since under normal conditions nothing can get colder than that temperature.
Depends what you mean by "normal" conditions. Under natural conditions the coldest place in the known universe is about 1 kelvin. Expanding gases automatically cool down, and the Boomerang Nebula is huge blob of gas that is expanding extremely rapidly. It has cooled to less than half of the universal background temp.
Physics labs can afford this sort of equipment, we're not going to be using the setup for gaming anytime soon.
*We* are not going to be using the setup for gaming anytime soon... but considering how much money some people throw at insane gaming rigs, yeah, someone will gladly spend more than an entire physics lab budget for it if it's available.
Pffft! That's nothing. *I* like to vote for whichever candidate looks like he might have some sort of multiple personality disorder. Makes things more interesting that way!
It is still a mystery as to when homochirality first arose.
We have fairly strong explanation on that. Left and right handed amino acids pair up when they crystalize/precipitate out. Any slight random imbalance in the left/right ratio in solution quickly gets amplified towards 100%. If you have 10100 lefts and 10000 rights, they will tend to precipitate out as 10000 pairs and be left with just the 100 lefts in solution.
A second interesting result is that interstellar radiation is often circularly polarized. Circularly polarized radiation will preferentially destroy one chirality or promote the opposite one. So a comet or meteor will preferentially carry organics of one chirality, and the previous effect will tend to purify a solution to that one chirlity.
anyone that CAN'T drive while talking on the phone should turn in their licence or refrain from driving at all.
Same goes for drunk driving. I am perfectly capable of driving while drunk. The chance of killing myself or someone else in a crash increases from a tiny fraction of a percent when sober to a larger fraction of a percent when drunk. Anyone CAN drive drunk without killing anyone 99+ percent of the time.
Comparing drunk driving to driving with a cell phone is even more ridiculous
What, are you doing a Steven Colbert impression? You don't look stuff up in books because books are just filled with worthless facts? You don't use your brain, you just go with whatever your gut says?
Scientific research finds that drivers on cellphones have WORSE reaction times than criminally-drunk drivers:
A study by the Transport Research Laboratory found drivers travelling at 113km/h took an average of 31m to stop. But drivers using hand-held mobile phones took 45m and even those talking on a hands-free phone took an average of 39m. Drivers who were just over the UK's legal drink-driving limit of.08 per cent stopped in an average distance of 35m.
Alcohol merely slows brain processing and reaction times. Using a cellphone entirely diverts higher brain functions, the task of driving is passed off to the brain's lower level autopilot systems. The brain's higher awareness systems are focused on the cellphone, unexpected events on the road outside may go completely unnoticed, and when they are noticed it takes longer to do so, and it takes the higher brain systems a moment to drop what they were doing and to switch over to processing the outside event, and then to first come up with the appropriate reaction. Drinking SLOWS reaction times to an unexpected event by a fraction of a second, but ususing a cellphone DELAYS reaction time to unexpected events by an even LARGER fraction of a second.
Autopilot-driving is sufficient to drive a car 99 percent of the time. Disasters generally occur when someone has a delayed or inappropriate reaction to some unexpected event, like a child running out into the road or someone cutting you off, or the car in front of you breaking. You can't just 'turn off your phone' after some other driver unexpectedly swerves into your lane. Well you CAN, but that is pointlessly too late to turn the cellphone off. You've already lost the reaction time and already hit someone.
I just tested the site with a search on "trusted computing". I tried it both with and without quotes. I was rather puzzled to see results featuring the Sarah Palin scandal and nationalreview ranting "Don't trust the liberal media". I was only able to search through part of the results before the site froze up - Slashdot effect I assume - but I couldn't find a single result actually addressing Trusted Computing. As near as I can tell it simply targeted the 'trust' fragment of the search term.
It is almost never done, but yes, the courts do have the option to nullify a copyright if it is being abused for an impermissable purpose.
It remonds me of some of the talk about the eu anti-trust case against Microsoft. Some people were saying that Microsoft could or even SHOULD ignore the orders of the EU court, with the notion that the European nations would be held hostage and would suffer and would lose if both sides got into a battle of wills. Thier notion was that the EU could only throw Microsft out, that Microsoft would go home and not sell in the EU, that Microsoft would merely not make as much profit but that the EU would pretty much come to a grinding halt without Windows available.
No. If a copyrigth holder, such as Microsoft, were to break the law, and were to refuse to pay court lawful damages, and were to willfully defy direct orders of the court, and were to attempt to abuse their monopoly and abuse their copyright to attempt to blackmail entire nations, the courts could and would terminate the local copyright on Windows. Then anyone and every would be free to copy and sell and modify Windows without restriction. Windows would be unlimitedly available for free or for independent sale.
Microsoft would not only be kicked out of doing business in the EU. If Microsoft defied lawful court orders, if Microsoft ignored and defied the courts, then Microsoft would also lose the PRIVILEGE of entering EU courts requesting those courts to issues orders against European citizens who copy Microsoft's products.
Courts almost never take the step of suspending or terminating a patent or copyright, but that option is available. You do NOT want to get into a battle of wills defying courts, or to otherwise piss them off in the extreme. Especially not when you are dependent upon those courts to enforce your patents or copyrights for you.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you, but I would like to point out that #2 alone is enough to eliminate DRM completely. If any generic unapproved player can read the data then that generic player could equally well output a DRM-free exact version.
-
What if the only restriction is that you own the device?
What if it comes with a jar of magic pixie dust?
Both are physically impossible. There can be no meaningful DRM t ll unless it is restricted to approved and properly crippled defective-by-design devices. If you actually could use it in any non-infringing way on any device you own, then you could trivially build your own device, or buy an appropriate device, witch could strip the DRM completely.
-
A particular implementation of DRM might work if it expands what you can legally do with your files (relative to the normal terms-of-service).
All POSSIBLE implementations of DRM diminish your ability to make non-infringing use of your files It is impossible to have any meaningful DRM at all without criminalizing valuable non-infringing products and criminalizing non-infringing technology and criminalizing non-infringing people.
DRM has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement. DRM is about criminalizing abilities. And the ability to engage in general non-infringing use inherently means the ability to infringe as well. Any product or technology that gives you the ability to engage in general non-infringing use inherently means the ability to infringe as well. Imagine trying to prohibit the ability to commit shoplifting - pretty much like chopping everyone's hands off.
-
This DRM seems to operate on the basis of restricting the ability to playback the content to the devices controlled by a customer
Maybe they are trying to make it seem that way, but it is 100% untrue. It is absolutely no different than any other DRM.
It completely throws copyright law out the window, and it only permits the ability to playback on approved devices with approved restricted functionality devices in the limited approved pre-defined manners. No different than any other DRM. Any device that they have not pre-approved is prohibited, and any usage or activity that they have not pre-approved is prohibited. All of copyright and all devices and all legal uses and all technology is forbidden.
It is not copyright infringement for me to build my own record player to play the record I bought. It is not copyright infringement for me to independently create an innovative new record player with valuable new features and for me to sell it to other people to benefit from, to play the records they bought on this great new innovative independent non-infringing player.
It is physically impossible to make any other form of DRM. It is physically impossible to make "invisible" DRM. It is physically impossible to make DRM that does not prohibit legal non-infringing activities. It is physically impossible to make DRM that does not prohibit Constitutionally established Fair Uses.
Yeah yeah yeah, their intent for DRM is to combat piracy, but no DRM past or future can ever prevent or diminish the effect of a single copy making it onto the internet. Regardless of their reasonable legitimate desire for DRM, the fact is that the primary effect is to prohibit/criminalize non-infringing activities, and event worse, to prohibit/criminalize non-infringing technologies and products and innovation.
I absolutely positively will NEVER buy their defective-by-design DRM crap, except perhaps for the explicit purpose of cracking it. And I'm getting so pissed off at this entire evil delusional anti-technology war they are waging that I want nothing more than to insert a live lobster up Mr Talal Shamoon's anatomy - sideways - and to explicitly rip any and all content 'protected' under this deluded system and post it on the internet so that legitimate buyers can make full and proper use of the content they bought.... and oh well everyone else can download it for free and I'm GLAD and I have absolutely ZERO sympathy left for these asshats. I am just sick and tired of the whole war and I just want them to financially and physically die already.
Bah. I probably shouldn't post on this stuff when I haven't slept in more than two days. I'm tired and fuzzy and I have no patients for these evil abusive delusional DRM companies and no patients for these evil abusive delusional media companies and no patients to be calm and reasonable and polite and self-sensor the flamage, and most of all my sleep deprived brain is enjoying the the whole live lobster thing way too much.
These people have the fuxored notion that they can, should, and will criminalize noninfringing technology, and that they can, should, and will imprision an innocent non-infringing school kid for up to five years for doing some non-infringing constitutionally protected Fair Use classroom media project in some unapproved way or with some unapproved devices. If someone want to bitch about my flamish tone, fine, but I want to hear them defend this. I want to hear them defend that criminalizing non-infringing technology is good or reasonable or even tolerable, defend that criminalizing non-infringing school kid clss project is good or reasonable or even tolerable. Just becase someone would like to prevent bank robberies does not make it ok for them to go around shooting innocent people in the attempt, does not make it ok for them to rollback and ban valuable-but-inconvenient technology itself, does not make it ok to prohibit free market competition in legitimate valuable innovative
This was the beginning of my lifelong dedication to criticizing inexcusable violations of the laws of physics by TV writers
The movie Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea had one of the biggest and most hysterical whoppers of all time. The plot is that the Van Allen radiation belts catch fire (scientifically silly, but we'll let that slide as standard sci-fi fare) steadily roasting the planet. The heroes are on a sub that has to race to a certain location to launch a nuclear missle at carefully calculated coordinates in the radiation belt to put out the fire and save the earth. The only route to get into position fast enough is to go under the north pole. As they race along the heat from the sky starts fracturing the polar sheet. They are deep in this sorta canyon, and these huge fragments of the polar sheet come crashing down battering them, crashing and bouncing off the ship, everyone on board is getting thrown around and everyone is terrified that the ship is going to be destroyed. Of course they survive, get to their coordinates, launch their nuclear missle and save the planet.
Many of you out there have probably seen the movie, and may even remember the scene. If you haven't, I've told you everything you need to know. Read over that scene and think about it. There is something wrong with it. Something very very wrong with it. I don't mean any of standard cheezy sci-fi stuff. Maybe with such short focused description that I gave people can pin down what's wrong, but almost no one watching the movie notices the error. It is really really really insanely bad. Howling laughter bad. Go back and see if you can spot it before reading the answer below.
.
.
.
Read every third letter, the letters in bold:
etiaocnreis hdflulcmofwayptvbsgk
Doh!
-
2.7 degrees Kelvin blackbody. That is the temperature of space since under normal conditions nothing can get colder than that temperature.
Depends what you mean by "normal" conditions. Under natural conditions the coldest place in the known universe is about 1 kelvin. Expanding gases automatically cool down, and the Boomerang Nebula is huge blob of gas that is expanding extremely rapidly. It has cooled to less than half of the universal background temp.
-
Well, the faster speeds and smaller sizes part anyway.
-
You forgot the War on Drugs... and kiddyporn...
and of course the big daddy moneybags of them all, piracy.
Yeah, that might bring in the $funding$.
-
Physics labs can afford this sort of equipment, we're not going to be using the setup for gaming anytime soon.
*We* are not going to be using the setup for gaming anytime soon...
but considering how much money some people throw at insane gaming rigs, yeah, someone will gladly spend more than an entire physics lab budget for it if it's available.
-
Pffft! That's nothing. *I* like to vote for whichever candidate looks like he might have some sort of multiple personality disorder. Makes things more interesting that way!
-
Yeah! And I just like to vote for whoever looks stupider!
-
This research is totally bogus. I just like to vote for the ugly candidate.
-
The AVC Advantage is too insecure to use in New Jersey.
So ship them to Ohio and Florida.
-
If there was a WHOOSH-zone that I got caught in, then tell Auntie Em I be home for dinner when I wake up.
Em, Sun.Jedi will be home for dinner when he wakes up.
-
It is still a mystery as to when homochirality first arose.
We have fairly strong explanation on that. Left and right handed amino acids pair up when they crystalize/precipitate out. Any slight random imbalance in the left/right ratio in solution quickly gets amplified towards 100%. If you have 10100 lefts and 10000 rights, they will tend to precipitate out as 10000 pairs and be left with just the 100 lefts in solution.
A second interesting result is that interstellar radiation is often circularly polarized. Circularly polarized radiation will preferentially destroy one chirality or promote the opposite one. So a comet or meteor will preferentially carry organics of one chirality, and the previous effect will tend to purify a solution to that one chirlity.
-
They make good kindling.
-
even if it's just placebo that's good enough for me.
I have some magic sand you might like to buy.
-
they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.
McCain looks and acts like a 300 year old vampire. Obama is gonna give him an ass kicking Blade style!
AdObama4Pres-Blade1.torrent 619.43 MB
----------------------
McCain is 72 years young, and as strong and healthy as when he was 20!
AdMcCainYoungAndVigorous-Cocoon.torrent 601.45 MB
-
anyone that CAN'T drive while talking on the phone should turn in their licence or refrain from driving at all.
Same goes for drunk driving.
I am perfectly capable of driving while drunk. The chance of killing myself or someone else in a crash increases from a tiny fraction of a percent when sober to a larger fraction of a percent when drunk. Anyone CAN drive drunk without killing anyone 99+ percent of the time.
Comparing drunk driving to driving with a cell phone is even more ridiculous
What, are you doing a Steven Colbert impression? You don't look stuff up in books because books are just filled with worthless facts? You don't use your brain, you just go with whatever your gut says?
Scientific research finds that drivers on cellphones have WORSE reaction times than criminally-drunk drivers:
Alcohol merely slows brain processing and reaction times. Using a cellphone entirely diverts higher brain functions, the task of driving is passed off to the brain's lower level autopilot systems. The brain's higher awareness systems are focused on the cellphone, unexpected events on the road outside may go completely unnoticed, and when they are noticed it takes longer to do so, and it takes the higher brain systems a moment to drop what they were doing and to switch over to processing the outside event, and then to first come up with the appropriate reaction. Drinking SLOWS reaction times to an unexpected event by a fraction of a second, but ususing a cellphone DELAYS reaction time to unexpected events by an even LARGER fraction of a second.
Autopilot-driving is sufficient to drive a car 99 percent of the time. Disasters generally occur when someone has a delayed or inappropriate reaction to some unexpected event, like a child running out into the road or someone cutting you off, or the car in front of you breaking. You can't just 'turn off your phone' after some other driver unexpectedly swerves into your lane. Well you CAN, but that is pointlessly too late to turn the cellphone off. You've already lost the reaction time and already hit someone.
-
Wrong sequence, chuckle.
char language='C';
language++++++++++++++++++++;
language=='M'
-
C++++++++++++++++++++
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Your comment looks too much like ascii art.
-
I just tested the site with a search on "trusted computing". I tried it both with and without quotes. I was rather puzzled to see results featuring the Sarah Palin scandal and nationalreview ranting "Don't trust the liberal media". I was only able to search through part of the results before the site froze up - Slashdot effect I assume - but I couldn't find a single result actually addressing Trusted Computing. As near as I can tell it simply targeted the 'trust' fragment of the search term.
-
1. Split Startcraft2 in three pieces.
2. ???
3. Profit!
4. Profit!
5. Profit!
Yeah yeah, everyone else already said the same thing, but mine's better :)
-
I need to start manufacturing things with built-in self destruct switches and simply blow up my customers purchases when I need more sales. =)
Microsoft got the patent on that ages ago.
-
It is almost never done, but yes, the courts do have the option to nullify a copyright if it is being abused for an impermissable purpose.
It remonds me of some of the talk about the eu anti-trust case against Microsoft. Some people were saying that Microsoft could or even SHOULD ignore the orders of the EU court, with the notion that the European nations would be held hostage and would suffer and would lose if both sides got into a battle of wills. Thier notion was that the EU could only throw Microsft out, that Microsoft would go home and not sell in the EU, that Microsoft would merely not make as much profit but that the EU would pretty much come to a grinding halt without Windows available.
No. If a copyrigth holder, such as Microsoft, were to break the law, and were to refuse to pay court lawful damages, and were to willfully defy direct orders of the court, and were to attempt to abuse their monopoly and abuse their copyright to attempt to blackmail entire nations, the courts could and would terminate the local copyright on Windows. Then anyone and every would be free to copy and sell and modify Windows without restriction. Windows would be unlimitedly available for free or for independent sale.
Microsoft would not only be kicked out of doing business in the EU. If Microsoft defied lawful court orders, if Microsoft ignored and defied the courts, then Microsoft would also lose the PRIVILEGE of entering EU courts requesting those courts to issues orders against European citizens who copy Microsoft's products.
Courts almost never take the step of suspending or terminating a patent or copyright, but that option is available. You do NOT want to get into a battle of wills defying courts, or to otherwise piss them off in the extreme. Especially not when you are dependent upon those courts to enforce your patents or copyrights for you.
-