While everything I said is anecdotal of course, their entire poll was a self reporting group... I saw this poll (or a poll very close to it in content) back when it was still live... I found it via a website instructing people to go there and complain about their broken xbox 360s!
Clearly MS should just release some statistics on the matter and shut people up but it probably is somewhat higher then normal and don't want to open themselves up to lawsuit... but 54%? Thats laughably unreliable. MS would have fixed the issue after release with that kind of major problem simply because it would have cost them more money to keep the cycle of repair going.
The whole issue is all about heat, I've bought my Xbox 360 right after xmas the year it was released and have had very few issues with it. I personally believe it is because I've always used it up-right and the power supply well ventilated. The only issue I had w/ it at all is when I accidentally knocked it over and wrecked my COD5 disk recently.
Yeah but in case you hadn't noticed the courts accept a large amount of digital evidence in courts with less then a steller backing, or so it seems to me.
As a programmer I know *nothing* on a computer is 100% reliable right down to the CPU microcode (blue pill hacks). It really is turtles all the way down.
I live in DC where they do the whole 45/35 thing in school zones and I don't know where you live or anything, but here in DC they love to put speed cameras out in front of those schools which give tickets. A couple of days ago in the news it was revealed that those people who were doing 45 were being given tickets by the system automatically, even though they shouldn't have because school wasn't in session, OOPS!
anagama -
The bug you're showing in your link is from the slashdot code being broken in "classic" mode. I view slashdot in multiple browsers on multiple platforms and its basically broken in all of them unfortunately. The new "D2" does not appear to be broken though on the other hand, so you might try using that one instead. Dissussions Viewing Preference should allow you to switch to the other style.
Maybe you could suggest the wiki entry be deleted. It doesn't sound like this guys posts have enough external reference points to hold itself up, and it doesn't sound like it is relevent enough to warrant a wiki article... There was a thing a while back about how wikipedia was clearing out those kind of entries. Just a thought.
While I can understand what you mean, it seemed to me that this transaction-cloud or whatever, could be used to hold your money like a bank (presumably in an anonymous way) so that you could get to your money w/o the government being able to track it... After all that is really how the IRS knows about your money - because banks are required to report on you, and so are your employers.
Thats why in the book Diamond Age when someone(s) invented a highly encrypted non-traceable way for people to do transactions governments collapsed because they couldn't tax people anymore. Its merely a background point in the book, I almost wish he wrote a book on just that topic I think it would be great. Its one of Neal Stephenson's best books imo.
If you actually read 12USC1201, you'd know that it is illegal to sell a VCR that does not respect the macrovision flag. In the exact same way, there are flags in RTMP media that control access to the underlying content. rtmpDump circumvents those flags.
Ah yes this is true and I'd forgotten that, but it was still true for broadcast tv and what is a stream of data if not a broadcast?
[...] I feel like it's quite proper for me to say "look but don't copy" -- same for a draft of a novel I'm writing or a short piece of music I've composed. [...] it seems to me quite obvious that you have no right to require that they not attach conditions to those bytes. This reasoning is known in legal circles as a maiore ad minus -- from the stronger unto the weaker. [...]
And it seems fair to ask look but don't copy, except all a computer does is copy bits all day from one place to another, its just what they do. But I do believe that those systems currently send those bytes without any requirement on my end - which is what I was getting at. There may be an implied requirement but there is not an explicit one that I can see - no login required for Hulu or Youtube content. So while you're right there may be a condition on those bytes, but to my eye the condition seems to be an internet connection. To which you'll say, but the video has a format and that format has a meaning and so we must re-implement macro-vission for the digital age!
And to that I say NO - don't go back to the bad old days. I've got more interesting things to do with that data which I shouldn't have to purchase it 12 times because you can't see past your nose.
Is the DMCA unconstitutional because it violates a particular provision of the Constitution or just because it's atrocious? People don't like to hear this from lawyers, but the fact is that the Constitution allows many shitty things (it is, after all, manifestly imperfect).
You've got a leg up on me here because I personally avoid this crap like the plague usually... But... How about this, the constitution requires that copyright be for a *limited* amount of time, I could argue they are preventing this. Though thats a weak argument I'm out of time at work and my internet is busted at home thanks to Comcast's crappy service.
Maybe it is a classic is/ought problem as you put it, but my comment wasn't directed at your factual grandparent comment. A discussion can have more then just fact but also opinions.
In your post you said: this is an unsettled area of law. Since it would be a rather boring discussion without opinion (especially here) I think we can move passed that point eh? Now onto something more interesting...
I disagree very strenuously with the notion that this point alone proves that consumers ought to be able copy content marked 'display only'
To which I would beg the question, why not? The makers of rtmpDump don't seem any different then those of the vcr or camera to me. I don't believe there is any signed agreement by the site and the user to only use the Adobe certified player software and so long as they send the bytes to me they can have no complaint on how I use (display) those bits on my end (as a user). Now with the advent of the DMCA - an atrocious law that should be declared in part or whole as unconstitutional - there is a legal ground for attacking the neo-vcr and to that I say bullocks. With no contractual agreement between any of the parties why the fed. gov. need to get involved with everything? I'm sure the ass hats would like to come after me for my DTV capture devices too, bugger them. I shouldn't even have to utter the words fair use. I welcome the diamond age.
They way you describe it it really sounds like the DMCA can be used to create an Evil Bit standard backed by the full power of legislature...
That is exactly what the DMCA is for, the creation of the evil bit - see HDTV's magic flag bullshit, or in this case, a stream flag or whatever. Its all really stupid because ultimately displayable content is copyable and thats what they refuse to realize.
In some games you can turn it off, others you can't, but in this game it doesn't matter because there isn't any.
Check out these images from the game.
I searched, I couldn't find any that had any blood even. If we were talking about COD5 which has lots and lots of blood plus blown of arms and legs and torsos even - you would have something to talk about, but this game doesn't even have any that I can see.
I think its because its the simplest option for both the developer and for the user. Consider that this packaging process can be automated, requires no special installer program, and is pretty user friendly. That makes it the shortest path for both a developer and for the user, win win.
Not to rain on your parade here, because I really would love a sweet mesh network, but our phones and PDAs are already used by the gov to track us - remember that the FBI can turn on the voice mic (and for sure the GPS and maybe the camera by now) of any phone - even if that phone doesn't appear to be on.
Of course it will be broken in some ways, but this does sound like it would be an improvement over the current set of problematic ID systems. I mean if an ID with protection in depth that was actually cryptographically secure could be created... Well lets just say I would feel a lot better using it in a more wide spread area (think credit cards / money transfers, or more creative things).
Hey thanks for that, it was pretty clear, but I still am wondering if it was about the specific set of scans that Google made or if it grants Google exclusive rights to the text regardless of the scans which clearly be very bad.
That clarification is really important because clearly blocking all other parties from the book table would be a clear abuse of monopoly position by Google.
Can anyone actually correctly summarize what is going on with this Google book deal, I find it hard to believe that Google is trying to gain exclusive rights over all these unclaimed (copyright wise) books completely and forever for all copies of this book everywhere.
Isn't it really that they just want rights to put up the books that they scanned (and some people that had agreements with them to help scan)? Is there something that would stop people from rescanning those books and posting them up some place else?
Links to clear sources would be best... Where's my Google Security Blanket(TM)!
I've worked on SCADA power systems before as well and everything he says here is very accurate. The problem with the system starts with the desk jockey types start to want to view the system from their office desk... It all goes down hill from there.
I'll also point out that I'm sure that if someone wanted to get into the system that was off network they would just put USB thumb drives out in the parking lot with malware on them, then wait for the malware to call home or worm its way around the network to a machine that is connecting to the internet and tunnel in that way.
You clearly haven't played through this last expansion yet because there are at least half a dozen poop collecting or toilet quests to go through. I thought the outhouse quest quite disgusting myself.
Maybe so, but do if you are hoping to get young people - people who wouldn't otherwise notice you - to notice you, then maybe you would post it to some place they go right? I'm wondering why they can't just post them to multiple places - now that seems a more reasonable question to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly MS should just release some statistics on the matter and shut people up but it probably is somewhat higher then normal and don't want to open themselves up to lawsuit... but 54%? Thats laughably unreliable. MS would have fixed the issue after release with that kind of major problem simply because it would have cost them more money to keep the cycle of repair going.
The whole issue is all about heat, I've bought my Xbox 360 right after xmas the year it was released and have had very few issues with it. I personally believe it is because I've always used it up-right and the power supply well ventilated. The only issue I had w/ it at all is when I accidentally knocked it over and wrecked my COD5 disk recently.
Yeah but in case you hadn't noticed the courts accept a large amount of digital evidence in courts with less then a steller backing, or so it seems to me. As a programmer I know *nothing* on a computer is 100% reliable right down to the CPU microcode (blue pill hacks). It really is turtles all the way down.
Thanks for that link, very cool.
I live in DC where they do the whole 45/35 thing in school zones and I don't know where you live or anything, but here in DC they love to put speed cameras out in front of those schools which give tickets. A couple of days ago in the news it was revealed that those people who were doing 45 were being given tickets by the system automatically, even though they shouldn't have because school wasn't in session, OOPS!
Since its GPLv2, its clear that step two is "Require patent licensing" and hidden step four is "Sue any forked projects in ground for infringement".
anagama - The bug you're showing in your link is from the slashdot code being broken in "classic" mode. I view slashdot in multiple browsers on multiple platforms and its basically broken in all of them unfortunately. The new "D2" does not appear to be broken though on the other hand, so you might try using that one instead. Dissussions Viewing Preference should allow you to switch to the other style.
Maybe you could suggest the wiki entry be deleted. It doesn't sound like this guys posts have enough external reference points to hold itself up, and it doesn't sound like it is relevent enough to warrant a wiki article... There was a thing a while back about how wikipedia was clearing out those kind of entries. Just a thought.
While I can understand what you mean, it seemed to me that this transaction-cloud or whatever, could be used to hold your money like a bank (presumably in an anonymous way) so that you could get to your money w/o the government being able to track it... After all that is really how the IRS knows about your money - because banks are required to report on you, and so are your employers.
I do agree with you though in its unlikeliness.
Thats why in the book Diamond Age when someone(s) invented a highly encrypted non-traceable way for people to do transactions governments collapsed because they couldn't tax people anymore. Its merely a background point in the book, I almost wish he wrote a book on just that topic I think it would be great. Its one of Neal Stephenson's best books imo.
If you actually read 12USC1201, you'd know that it is illegal to sell a VCR that does not respect the macrovision flag. In the exact same way, there are flags in RTMP media that control access to the underlying content. rtmpDump circumvents those flags.
Ah yes this is true and I'd forgotten that, but it was still true for broadcast tv and what is a stream of data if not a broadcast?
[...] I feel like it's quite proper for me to say "look but don't copy" -- same for a draft of a novel I'm writing or a short piece of music I've composed. [...] it seems to me quite obvious that you have no right to require that they not attach conditions to those bytes. This reasoning is known in legal circles as a maiore ad minus -- from the stronger unto the weaker. [...]
And it seems fair to ask look but don't copy, except all a computer does is copy bits all day from one place to another, its just what they do. But I do believe that those systems currently send those bytes without any requirement on my end - which is what I was getting at. There may be an implied requirement but there is not an explicit one that I can see - no login required for Hulu or Youtube content. So while you're right there may be a condition on those bytes, but to my eye the condition seems to be an internet connection. To which you'll say, but the video has a format and that format has a meaning and so we must re-implement macro-vission for the digital age!
And to that I say NO - don't go back to the bad old days. I've got more interesting things to do with that data which I shouldn't have to purchase it 12 times because you can't see past your nose.
Is the DMCA unconstitutional because it violates a particular provision of the Constitution or just because it's atrocious? People don't like to hear this from lawyers, but the fact is that the Constitution allows many shitty things (it is, after all, manifestly imperfect).
You've got a leg up on me here because I personally avoid this crap like the plague usually... But... How about this, the constitution requires that copyright be for a *limited* amount of time, I could argue they are preventing this. Though thats a weak argument I'm out of time at work and my internet is busted at home thanks to Comcast's crappy service.
Maybe it is a classic is/ought problem as you put it, but my comment wasn't directed at your factual grandparent comment. A discussion can have more then just fact but also opinions.
In your post you said: this is an unsettled area of law. Since it would be a rather boring discussion without opinion (especially here) I think we can move passed that point eh? Now onto something more interesting...
I disagree very strenuously with the notion that this point alone proves that consumers ought to be able copy content marked 'display only'
To which I would beg the question, why not? The makers of rtmpDump don't seem any different then those of the vcr or camera to me. I don't believe there is any signed agreement by the site and the user to only use the Adobe certified player software and so long as they send the bytes to me they can have no complaint on how I use (display) those bits on my end (as a user). Now with the advent of the DMCA - an atrocious law that should be declared in part or whole as unconstitutional - there is a legal ground for attacking the neo-vcr and to that I say bullocks. With no contractual agreement between any of the parties why the fed. gov. need to get involved with everything? I'm sure the ass hats would like to come after me for my DTV capture devices too, bugger them. I shouldn't even have to utter the words fair use. I welcome the diamond age.
They way you describe it it really sounds like the DMCA can be used to create an Evil Bit standard backed by the full power of legislature...
That is exactly what the DMCA is for, the creation of the evil bit - see HDTV's magic flag bullshit, or in this case, a stream flag or whatever. Its all really stupid because ultimately displayable content is copyable and thats what they refuse to realize.
In some games you can turn it off, others you can't, but in this game it doesn't matter because there isn't any. Check out these images from the game. I searched, I couldn't find any that had any blood even. If we were talking about COD5 which has lots and lots of blood plus blown of arms and legs and torsos even - you would have something to talk about, but this game doesn't even have any that I can see.
I think you need to read the news more, say this story about the mafia guys.
I think its because its the simplest option for both the developer and for the user. Consider that this packaging process can be automated, requires no special installer program, and is pretty user friendly. That makes it the shortest path for both a developer and for the user, win win.
Not to rain on your parade here, because I really would love a sweet mesh network, but our phones and PDAs are already used by the gov to track us - remember that the FBI can turn on the voice mic (and for sure the GPS and maybe the camera by now) of any phone - even if that phone doesn't appear to be on.
I had that problem the first time I tried it, I just closed it and relaunched it... It then uploaded w/o problem.
Maybe its been a while since you looked at it, according to their page it looks like debian and ubuntu are supported.
Of course it will be broken in some ways, but this does sound like it would be an improvement over the current set of problematic ID systems. I mean if an ID with protection in depth that was actually cryptographically secure could be created... Well lets just say I would feel a lot better using it in a more wide spread area (think credit cards / money transfers, or more creative things).
Hey thanks for that, it was pretty clear, but I still am wondering if it was about the specific set of scans that Google made or if it grants Google exclusive rights to the text regardless of the scans which clearly be very bad.
That clarification is really important because clearly blocking all other parties from the book table would be a clear abuse of monopoly position by Google.
Can anyone actually correctly summarize what is going on with this Google book deal, I find it hard to believe that Google is trying to gain exclusive rights over all these unclaimed (copyright wise) books completely and forever for all copies of this book everywhere.
Isn't it really that they just want rights to put up the books that they scanned (and some people that had agreements with them to help scan)? Is there something that would stop people from rescanning those books and posting them up some place else?
Links to clear sources would be best... Where's my Google Security Blanket(TM)!
Mod this guy up big time!
I've worked on SCADA power systems before as well and everything he says here is very accurate. The problem with the system starts with the desk jockey types start to want to view the system from their office desk... It all goes down hill from there.
I'll also point out that I'm sure that if someone wanted to get into the system that was off network they would just put USB thumb drives out in the parking lot with malware on them, then wait for the malware to call home or worm its way around the network to a machine that is connecting to the internet and tunnel in that way.
You clearly haven't played through this last expansion yet because there are at least half a dozen poop collecting or toilet quests to go through. I thought the outhouse quest quite disgusting myself.
Maybe so, but do if you are hoping to get young people - people who wouldn't otherwise notice you - to notice you, then maybe you would post it to some place they go right? I'm wondering why they can't just post them to multiple places - now that seems a more reasonable question to me.