but, saying things like "Cool, MP3's and DECSS'd DVD movies at the speed of the light." doesn't really help our credibility. I mean, the greatest fear of the MPAA is that bandwidth will get to the point where entire DVDs can easily be pirated from computer to computer...
Ok, the comment was probably tongue in cheek, but still... do you *enjoy* taunting lawyers?:) ----
Ok, granted - it's still a bunch of different protocols, at least it's a single app.
Everybuddy is an attempt to combine an ICQ and AOL Instant Messenger client (And maybe one day every chat protocol in existance? Is that a big dream?) into a single, fairly coherent interface. Nobody does what Everybuddy is trying to do.;-)
Ooh! Look! Tarballs inside the RPM!:) Granted, that's kind of silly, and (much as I like Red Hat) I was a little dismayed to see the requirement for a RH 6.1 install. But... you want tarballs? You got tarballs.:) ----
There's another one out there - haven't played with it for a while, but I don't see it get much press, either. It's Armadillo - a GTK+ based browser written in C.
use nist, grab it from the livid cvs archive. (livid.on.openprojects.net) you'll have to compile it though. Don't be scared. If you're too lazy to figure it out, go play the damn thing in Windows.:)
"The e-mail preference service (or e-mps), which has been in the planning stage for more than a year, will maintain a list of e-mail addresses whose owners have registered a preference to not receive unsolicited commercial e-mail. Marketers can then compare their mailing lists with the e-mps database and cleanse their list of those who have requested to be removed."
Uh-huh. And I'm sure that NO spammers will just take that list as a ready-made list of known-good addresses, would they?
It takes some time, but it's quite rewarding to see a 404 on a spammer's page after you send in a complaint. Unfortunately, it's usually on some free site and it just pops up somewhere else... but there's still a feeling of contentment to see that you've caused *them* some inconvenience.:)
I thought starting and stopping hard drives was extremely hard on them... something to do with the lubrication on the spindles. Has this been solved for these small drives?
Hm, I was going to say "just block it" but I found this from the FCC (http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/CID/cidfacts.html):
800 Number/Toll Free Calls
o Requesting privacy on calls to 800 and 888 numbers may or may not prevent the display of one's telephone number. When you dial a toll free number, the party you are calling pays for the call. Typically, the called party for toll free calls is able to identify your telephone number using a telephone network technology called Automatic Number Identification. FCC rules limit the subsequent use of this information and require carriers to inform consumers that telephone numbers are being transmitted in this way.
AFAIK, Red Hat doesn't author any code without releasing it... perhaps they could sponsor someone, but that kind of goes against the grain of what they're trying to do.
They do include some binaris in their applications CD, but I don't think they invested in those products, they just distribute them (demos and the like, for the most part...)
(Still stuck on 3...) Rather than just running ahead and writing that program, was this brought up in a more political sense, such as letter-writing, email, phone calls, etc? I doubt it was, to any extent, maybe one or two here or there. Maybe some programmers could have done the movie-watching community a favor by signing a NDA, and created binaries for the said platforms, with the industries okay. Was that tried?
It's not just signing an NDA - it's big bucks. In the many thousands of dollars (See www.dvdforum.org - $5k for the specs, $10k for the license, I think) For your average linux hacker, official access to the specs isn't possible, and it would disallow source distribution. Now, I'm not saying that if you can't afford it, that you should steal it. I don't know the legalities involved with reverse engineering the format, but I don't think that it constitutes theft. Distributing copyrighted works clearly does, but deciphering an algorithm is a bit more murky.
I think that most people involved in this debate are not arguing that we should abolish intellectual property. Most people agree that the movies are copyrighted works, and should be protected as such. Most people also fail to see how reverse-engineering the format so that legally acquired DVDs can be watched on the platform of choice is a criminal act.
Well, that's why I put the gun example in there.:)
People will interpret similar scenarios differently depending on where their passions lie. You can argue that guns are for target practice, and you can argue that the CSS code was for viewing. Other people with other passions (anti-gun control or pro-profits) will argue that you are wrong.
(I agree that the gun example might be a bit overboard since we're talking about human _lives_ in that case, but I bet the DVD consortium ranks the importance of their profits almost as high as a human life or two...)
Dave and I hashed this out via email, but here it is anyway.:)
I think that the law makes the act of circumvention, in and of itself, regardless of intent, illegal:
b) publishes information intended to enable or assist persons to circumvent that form of copy-protection
To me, the code clearly circumvents the copy protection algorithm. I'm not saying it's a good law... No matter the intent, it seems that the code is illegal in the U.K.
Well for one, you own nothing aside from the right to view the movie in your home. It's encoded on the shiny little disk you purchased, but so far as your rights go, it's the same as goes for commercial software.
I agree... more or less. What they're really saying is that you own the right to view it in your own home using one of the pre-approved viewing methods. I still chafe at the idea that if I choose to view it in a manner different from what "they" envisioned, then I am committing a crime.
Most of this boils down to what they're trying to prevent, which is illegal copying*. Exposing flaws in encryption methods aids and abets those who would violate copyright laws. But who should be punished?
If Consumer Reports exposes the fact that you can pop the lock on a Yugo by hitting the right rear quarter panel with your palm, are they suddenly liable for auto theft?
Or, take the gun control argument. Do you go after the gun makers, or the people who use the guns to murder people? Some might argue this differently from the "Yugo" example above.
Arguments can probably be made either way, that either the "enabler" or the "perpetrator" should be punished. Or both.:/ In this case, the right thing seems to be to go after the people responsible for the action which causes direct harm to the industry - the pirates. Not the guys who show how the scheme works.
*unless they also want to get rich from licensing fees for DVD players....
From what I've seen on the lists, the TNT cards are generally regared as faster than the Matrox cards when it comes to 3D.
But - and this is a big ol' but - Nvidia hasn't played quite as nicely as Matrox when it comes to releasing specs. So, the GLX guys have been able to optimize the heck out of the Matrox driver, and the Nvidia driver hasn't gone as far.
In fact, John Carmack has more or less stated that he's personally focusing on development for the G400 because the specs are there and he likes to program the *hardware.* This is kind of a bummer, because at this point, the TNT cards are 2 generations old - how many super-secret secrets can be left in it?
Slashdot Mirror
but, saying things like "Cool, MP3's and DECSS'd DVD movies at the speed of the light." doesn't really help our credibility. I mean, the greatest fear of the MPAA is that bandwidth will get to the point where entire DVDs can easily be pirated from computer to computer...
:)
Ok, the comment was probably tongue in cheek, but still... do you *enjoy* taunting lawyers?
----
----
He wasn't asking for source - he was asking for source *tarballs* since he didn't want to use RPM.
I was pointing out that there *were* source tarballs, you just had to extract them from the RPM.
----
what's wrong with them? I'm not a hardware guy or a programmer guy, so bear with me. But what's missing?
----
[sandeen@Lager sandeen]$ rpm -qpl tdfx_dri-3.9.16-3.src.rpm
:) Granted, that's kind of silly, and (much as I like Red Hat) I was a little dismayed to see the requirement for a RH 6.1 install. But... you want tarballs? You got tarballs. :)
DRI.spec
DRI.tgz
glu.tgz
glut.tgz
misc.tgz
unique.patch
[sandeen@Lager sandeen]$ rpm -qpl Glide_V3-DRI-3.10-2.src.rpm
3dfx.gif
Glide3.10.tar.gz
Glide_V3-DRI-3.10.spec
Ooh! Look! Tarballs inside the RPM!
----
There's another one out there - haven't played with it for a while, but I don't see it get much press, either. It's Armadillo - a GTK+ based browser written in C.
----
http://stor e.redhat.com/commerce/store.cgi?page=/more_rhl_sta ndard.html
----
you'll have to compile it though. Don't be scared. If you're too lazy to figure it out, go play the damn thing in Windows.
Also, the framerates are pretty low right now.
----
I'll agree, though, that there were a few errors that probably shouldn't have crept in there.
----
----
----
>>According to the comments, there are also definitely no typos in the web page.
No, there are no *tyops* in the web page...
-- There are no secret messages in the source code to this web page. --
-- There are no tyops in this web page. --
:-)
Flamebait?! Sheesh. You will get yours in Meta-Moderation! May your karma wither and die!
:-)
Pardon my arrogance, but I'd like to suggest that Linus probably knows how to pronounce it.
I thought starting and stopping hard drives was extremely hard on them... something to do with the lubrication on the spindles. Has this been solved for these small drives?
AFAIK, Red Hat doesn't author any code without releasing it... perhaps they could sponsor someone, but that kind of goes against the grain of what they're trying to do.
They do include some binaris in their applications CD, but I don't think they invested in those products, they just distribute them (demos and the like, for the most part...)
> Did css-auth need a valid dvd to work?
No, but even if it did, it could easily be defeated since the source was available.
It's not just signing an NDA - it's big bucks. In the many thousands of dollars (See www.dvdforum.org - $5k for the specs, $10k for the license, I think) For your average linux hacker, official access to the specs isn't possible, and it would disallow source distribution. Now, I'm not saying that if you can't afford it, that you should steal it. I don't know the legalities involved with reverse engineering the format, but I don't think that it constitutes theft. Distributing copyrighted works clearly does, but deciphering an algorithm is a bit more murky.
I think that most people involved in this debate are not arguing that we should abolish intellectual property. Most people agree that the movies are copyrighted works, and should be protected as such. Most people also fail to see how reverse-engineering the format so that legally acquired DVDs can be watched on the platform of choice is a criminal act.
Well, that's why I put the gun example in there. :)
People will interpret similar scenarios differently depending on where their passions lie. You can argue that guns are for target practice, and you can argue that the CSS code was for viewing. Other people with other passions (anti-gun control or pro-profits) will argue that you are wrong.
(I agree that the gun example might be a bit overboard since we're talking about human _lives_ in that case, but I bet the DVD consortium ranks the importance of their profits almost as high as a human life or two...)
Dave and I hashed this out via email, but here it is anyway. :)
I think that the law makes the act of circumvention, in and of itself, regardless of intent, illegal:
b) publishes information intended to enable or assist persons to circumvent that form of copy-protection
To me, the code clearly circumvents the copy protection algorithm. I'm not saying it's a good law... No matter the intent, it seems that the code is illegal in the U.K.
I agree... more or less. What they're really saying is that you own the right to view it in your own home using one of the pre-approved viewing methods. I still chafe at the idea that if I choose to view it in a manner different from what "they" envisioned, then I am committing a crime.
Most of this boils down to what they're trying to prevent, which is illegal copying*. Exposing flaws in encryption methods aids and abets those who would violate copyright laws. But who should be punished?
If Consumer Reports exposes the fact that you can pop the lock on a Yugo by hitting the right rear quarter panel with your palm, are they suddenly liable for auto theft?
Or, take the gun control argument. Do you go after the gun makers, or the people who use the guns to murder people? Some might argue this differently from the "Yugo" example above.
Arguments can probably be made either way, that either the "enabler" or the "perpetrator" should be punished. Or both. :/ In this case, the right thing seems to be to go after the people responsible for the action which causes direct harm to the industry - the pirates. Not the guys who show how the scheme works.
*unless they also want to get rich from licensing fees for DVD players....
I thought USB could supply some power over the wire, not sure how much. But then - I could be wrong. :)
I'm pretty sure that's a UK law (I don't know where Derek is located) so if you're searching for more information, check the .uk sites first.
:)
From what I've seen on the lists, the TNT cards are generally regared as faster than the Matrox cards when it comes to 3D.
But - and this is a big ol' but - Nvidia hasn't played quite as nicely as Matrox when it comes to releasing specs. So, the GLX guys have been able to optimize the heck out of the Matrox driver, and the Nvidia driver hasn't gone as far.
In fact, John Carmack has more or less stated that he's personally focusing on development for the G400 because the specs are there and he likes to program the *hardware.* This is kind of a bummer, because at this point, the TNT cards are 2 generations old - how many super-secret secrets can be left in it?