Why not? Humans are only mad at people who play god with their own species....
Re:Oh boy:: me not worried, it won't work
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 1
Those who want to copy/crack/hack it, will. They can't stop it.
This is true as long as the CD holds music or video data. However, it is possible to implement security that verifies that this thing is the original disk. You would have to have the program attempting to verify send a random piece of data to the CD smartcard, which signs it with a private key and sends it back. This could be done on the last track of the CD, or the like, so that it does not interfere with normal operation. Then to pirate the game you either need to hack the smartcard to get at its private key, or hack the game not to make the request.
On the other hand, once someone gets the private key, game over, pirates 1, DocWitness 0.
They are producing something that the consumer wants, namely streaming devices, and representing people that produce something that the consumer wants, namely music. However, they are crippling their devices in a way that the consumer doesn't want, because it makes them more money that way.
This makes them filthy capitalists, just like the biotech companies that want to sell seed that can't be replanted to starving third-world countries, so that they can make the same profit every year.
Doing what the consumer wants isn't the essence of capitalism. The essence of capitalism is doing what will let you take the most of the consumer's hard-earned money.
There is nothing, short of Palladium, that will stop people from ripping a CD they can play on their computer. If a CD audio player can read the data on the CD by any means, a CD ripper can read the data the same way. It's just that simple. Any data that is distributed in a computer-readable format can be copied without too much creativity or effort, especially if it conforms to an open standard.
You overgeneralize. For one thing, there are few people who learned to compute on MacOS 9: it just hasn' t been around for that long. I don't even know any of these "MacOS 9 users" that you speak of.
I, for one, learned on System 7. I had no problem learning DOS, Win 3.1, and the 9x/ME versions of Windows (all the same up to XP, which I haven't learned yet because I haven't had to work with it before.) And although I'm a nerd, my sister isn't, and she also learned Windows with no difficulty, although I doubt she could do anything low-level.
The only way Apple products can "just work" is if Apple maintains absolute control over the hardware their software runs on.
...except that MacOS X is a *nix operating system (its kernel is effectively BSD). Certainly, it won't run on an 80x86 unless they rewrite it from the ground up (something I'd very much like to see, as it would vastly improve their software market share), but it should run no matter what video card you select, no matter what hard drive you have, etc.
The system requirements say that it should run on any computer fast enough to support its creeping featurism and somewhat overdone graphics, and that means anything from my beige G3 that doesn't have built-in USB, to a dual-processor G4 tower, to an iMac. If you build your own Mac with a G3 or G4 processor, MacOS X should support it.
This in not meant to be a troll. However, I sure as hell don't trust "sneak preview" tech specs full of typos in a article written by rumor-mongering hardware freaks half a page down from a picture of someone hitting a CPU with a giant green inflatable hammer.
Although it ain't no Tesla coil, you can draw a spark 2 feet long from a tabletop Van de Graaf (sp?) generator, which, since it makes static electricity, can be used to zap your friends without harm (stings a little though). Plus they are cheaper and use less power.
Spamming on the internet or via snail-mail is bad enough. You waste bandwidth/carrying capacity and a lot of time. But with fax spams, you completely tie up someone's fax lines and waste their ink and their paper. That's even worse than regular spam: it's regular spam plus DOS plus vandalism (those bastards are writing what might as well be graffiti on your quality paper).
Go get some Ambrosia Software! It's all shareware, though most can be pirated straight up with Surfers' Serials or the like (I didn't tell you that!). Many of the games are based on arcade games (Swoop=Galaxian, Apeiron=Centipede, Maelstrom=Asteroids, etc), although some of them, such as Harry the Handsome Executive or the Escape Velocity/EV Override/EV Nova trilogy, are not at all like arcade ports.
I tried it first because it was very advertised. Now everyone has my Hotmail address. I'll change when I get to college and get an account there.
But surprisingly, I only get a little spam. Like 20 or 30% of my mail, and half of it gets filtered. And most of that is from GreetingWishes, which I never should have signed up for and am now stuck with. I don't even get that much real mail... I average about 3 spams a week... it's not all that bad (as much as i love to bash M$).
Actually, if encryption and signing of e-mail ever becomes widely used, the biggest problem it will curtail is spamming. Suppose you filter out all mail that is not encrypted and signed with a DSS non-canned-prime public key or RSA key of at least 2048 bits. Such keys take a while (half-hour perhaps) to generate, so blocking them (using p or n in the key, ignoring g and g^a or e, which are can be regenerated in seconds) should be fairly effective. You couldn't forge the header as easily either. And it's not like we're going to fill up the huge keyspaces any time soon even if they are bulk-generated by spammers. Furthermore, people couldn't plug in random addresses (because they have to look up the public key too), and for every person they spam, they have to wait some fraction of a second for encrypt. It doesn't make any difference unless you send off 50 thousand mails a day.
Strange. My email address is of the form firstname_lastname@hotmail.com, and about 30% of the mail that I receive is spam (and I don't get very much mail anyway, only two a day). I have occasionally given my address out (don't EVER sign up for GreetingWishes, they make up half my spam and are hard to block). Half of that gets filtered, although I do have to check my junk box once a week. Occasional real announcements (mailed to a hundred or so other people) have gotten junked.
It is impossible to make a good software copy-protection mechanism for a writable technology. (in fact, it was rigorously proved that nothing can be copy protected with a software-only mechanism; sorry, can't find the reference.) Surely M$ knows this (they're the ones writing the compression, why not the copy protection?). I would be willing to bet that this new technology will be protected with Palladium.
Now, this wouldn't work if it used DVD-9 disks, because you could just dupe them like you can today. But the article only says that they are like DVD-9 disks. Hmmmm. Perhaps they'll change minor details of the format to stop it from being read or written with existing DVD-9 technology, force us all to buy new drives (as if I would do that for some Hollywood-sponsored crap) and Palladium to watch a movie. Sure would drive up the hardware manufacturers' profits if they could do this. And maybe help the acceptance of Palladium.
Trust me, anything backwards-compatible enough to be played with just a software upgrade is backwards-compatible enough to be duped with just a software upgrade.
actually, there are a few reasons for this: 1) Blu-Ray hasn't come out yet. 3) Writable Blu-Ray hasn't come out yet and won't for a while. 3) Rewritable Blu-Ray hasn't come out yet and won't for even longer. 4) Even when rewritable Blu-Ray comes out, the media probably won't have nearly as many rewrite cyles as you would need to make a hard disk out of it, unless you want to replace it once a week. In fact, the use of a high-refresh rate application like virtual memory would make the disk overheat and fail very quickly. 5)Rewriting it will probably be too slow to be acceptable, especially if you want to use it for virtual memory. 6) By the time all these concerns are addressed, we will all be using 10TB holographic drives.
Bandwidth doesn't matter because you're compressing it before it's sent over the internet. It will be the same gig or whatever that it is now with DVDs. The (temporary) obstacle is that you would need 30 gig free disk space to rip it... of course, you could rip it in sections... your parent is right, size is no anti-piracy mechanism.
once the writes for those huge disks come out, hollywood would be shit scared. you could burn all of your mp3's on 3 disks and send them to anyone anywhere.
Uh, those disks hold about 30 gigabytes apiece. Are you telling me you have 90 gigs of mp3s?
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? Humans are only mad at people who play god with their own species....
On the other hand, once someone gets the private key, game over, pirates 1, DocWitness 0.
(see also other reply on my original comment)
They are producing something that the consumer wants, namely streaming devices, and representing people that produce something that the consumer wants, namely music. However, they are crippling their devices in a way that the consumer doesn't want, because it makes them more money that way.
This makes them filthy capitalists, just like the biotech companies that want to sell seed that can't be replanted to starving third-world countries, so that they can make the same profit every year.
Doing what the consumer wants isn't the essence of capitalism. The essence of capitalism is doing what will let you take the most of the consumer's hard-earned money.
There is nothing, short of Palladium, that will stop people from ripping a CD they can play on their computer. If a CD audio player can read the data on the CD by any means, a CD ripper can read the data the same way. It's just that simple. Any data that is distributed in a computer-readable format can be copied without too much creativity or effort, especially if it conforms to an open standard.
You overgeneralize. For one thing, there are few people who learned to compute on MacOS 9: it just hasn' t been around for that long. I don't even know any of these "MacOS 9 users" that you speak of.
I, for one, learned on System 7. I had no problem learning DOS, Win 3.1, and the 9x/ME versions of Windows (all the same up to XP, which I haven't learned yet because I haven't had to work with it before.) And although I'm a nerd, my sister isn't, and she also learned Windows with no difficulty, although I doubt she could do anything low-level.
The system requirements say that it should run on any computer fast enough to support its creeping featurism and somewhat overdone graphics, and that means anything from my beige G3 that doesn't have built-in USB, to a dual-processor G4 tower, to an iMac. If you build your own Mac with a G3 or G4 processor, MacOS X should support it.
actually, music sharing is more like communism than cracking down on it is... I'd call the RIAA "filthy capitalists" rather than commies.
This in not meant to be a troll. However, I sure as hell don't trust "sneak preview" tech specs full of typos in a article written by rumor-mongering hardware freaks half a page down from a picture of someone hitting a CPU with a giant green inflatable hammer.
Everyone knows that you can tell if someone is a criminal by the pattern of bumps on their skull.....
Minority Report?
Although it ain't no Tesla coil, you can draw a spark 2 feet long from a tabletop Van de Graaf (sp?) generator, which, since it makes static electricity, can be used to zap your friends without harm (stings a little though). Plus they are cheaper and use less power.
The people who will have the most fun with this when it comes out will be the obsessive-compulsive overclockers. I can just imagine:
Bob: I've just overclocked my AMD SuperHammer to 1.3 THz!
Bill: Won't that overheat?
Bob: No. I got this fancy new HP system that sprays water on it when it gets too hot.
Bill: Cool! Fire up Quake 4 Arena and check the framerate!
(One minute later) Bob: Yes! 5,102,345 fps! A new world record!
(Five seconds later) tsssssCRACKfizzlefizzlefizzlessssss!
Bill: Uhhhh....Bob.....?
Yeah, I know they will use some insulating fluid. But still, it seems weird to spray stuff on your CPU....
Spamming on the internet or via snail-mail is bad enough. You waste bandwidth/carrying capacity and a lot of time. But with fax spams, you completely tie up someone's fax lines and waste their ink and their paper. That's even worse than regular spam: it's regular spam plus DOS plus vandalism (those bastards are writing what might as well be graffiti on your quality paper).
ASCII Quake!!!
'nuff said
Go get some Ambrosia Software! It's all shareware, though most can be pirated straight up with Surfers' Serials or the like (I didn't tell you that!). Many of the games are based on arcade games (Swoop=Galaxian, Apeiron=Centipede, Maelstrom=Asteroids, etc), although some of them, such as Harry the Handsome Executive or the Escape Velocity/EV Override/EV Nova trilogy, are not at all like arcade ports.
Apple heavily advertised a super spam filter in the version of Mail that comes with Jaguar. Does anyone out there know how good it actually is?
I tried it first because it was very advertised. Now everyone has my Hotmail address. I'll change when I get to college and get an account there.
But surprisingly, I only get a little spam. Like 20 or 30% of my mail, and half of it gets filtered. And most of that is from GreetingWishes, which I never should have signed up for and am now stuck with. I don't even get that much real mail... I average about 3 spams a week... it's not all that bad (as much as i love to bash M$).
for all i care, he can move it to Debian Linux and type rm -fr /
Actually, if encryption and signing of e-mail ever becomes widely used, the biggest problem it will curtail is spamming. Suppose you filter out all mail that is not encrypted and signed with a DSS non-canned-prime public key or RSA key of at least 2048 bits. Such keys take a while (half-hour perhaps) to generate, so blocking them (using p or n in the key, ignoring g and g^a or e, which are can be regenerated in seconds) should be fairly effective. You couldn't forge the header as easily either. And it's not like we're going to fill up the huge keyspaces any time soon even if they are bulk-generated by spammers. Furthermore, people couldn't plug in random addresses (because they have to look up the public key too), and for every person they spam, they have to wait some fraction of a second for encrypt. It doesn't make any difference unless you send off 50 thousand mails a day.
Strange. My email address is of the form firstname_lastname@hotmail.com, and about 30% of the mail that I receive is spam (and I don't get very much mail anyway, only two a day). I have occasionally given my address out (don't EVER sign up for GreetingWishes, they make up half my spam and are hard to block). Half of that gets filtered, although I do have to check my junk box once a week. Occasional real announcements (mailed to a hundred or so other people) have gotten junked.
It is impossible to make a good software copy-protection mechanism for a writable technology. (in fact, it was rigorously proved that nothing can be copy protected with a software-only mechanism; sorry, can't find the reference.) Surely M$ knows this (they're the ones writing the compression, why not the copy protection?). I would be willing to bet that this new technology will be protected with Palladium.
Now, this wouldn't work if it used DVD-9 disks, because you could just dupe them like you can today. But the article only says that they are like DVD-9 disks. Hmmmm. Perhaps they'll change minor details of the format to stop it from being read or written with existing DVD-9 technology, force us all to buy new drives (as if I would do that for some Hollywood-sponsored crap) and Palladium to watch a movie. Sure would drive up the hardware manufacturers' profits if they could do this. And maybe help the acceptance of Palladium.
Trust me, anything backwards-compatible enough to be played with just a software upgrade is backwards-compatible enough to be duped with just a software upgrade.
actually, there are a few reasons for this:
1) Blu-Ray hasn't come out yet.
3) Writable Blu-Ray hasn't come out yet and won't for a while.
3) Rewritable Blu-Ray hasn't come out yet and won't for even longer.
4) Even when rewritable Blu-Ray comes out, the media probably won't have nearly as many rewrite cyles as you would need to make a hard disk out of it, unless you want to replace it once a week. In fact, the use of a high-refresh rate application like virtual memory would make the disk overheat and fail very quickly.
5)Rewriting it will probably be too slow to be acceptable, especially if you want to use it for virtual memory.
6) By the time all these concerns are addressed, we will all be using 10TB holographic drives.
Bandwidth doesn't matter because you're compressing it before it's sent over the internet. It will be the same gig or whatever that it is now with DVDs. The (temporary) obstacle is that you would need 30 gig free disk space to rip it... of course, you could rip it in sections... your parent is right, size is no anti-piracy mechanism.