REstructured eXtended eXecutor (REXX), an interpreted programming language known for its ease of use, a 'rock solid kernel,' 'excellent multitasking,' and low system requirements.
Are you sure this isn't a description of the Amiga OS?
That being said, of course ATi should roll out a driver that has hardware HDCP enabled, or offer some form of compensation to previous buyers whom were mislead.
You can't fix this with a driver. If you could this would be a non-issue. The video card needs a Trusted Computing Module chip installed that contains secret keys that the user cannot access. No chip = No HDCP. And it's not like there's a socket on most video cards waiting to be populated.
The support of HDCP is not an optional thing -- the content will not be available without it regardless of what chaos ATI may or may not create through questionable marketing of their products.
I believe there are already external HDCP decoders available in the market. A previous topic listed them for sale in Europe.
A day or two after this information was revealed, HDMI.org went completely password protected and ATI is now modifying key areas of its website, removing any mention of 'HDCP-ready'.
I predict a lot of hits on the Wayback Machine this week.
How about Office Everything, for those of us who what to spend the most amount of money possible on features we'll never need -- but love to boast about?
Once you know a backdoor is there, then it's just a matter of finding it. Intentional holes in security is never a good thing.
And once it exists, how long before the **AA is demanding that legislators give them access to it as well? After all, they clearly feel that protection of their IP rights is more important than anything else -- and they have money to make themselves heard in this regard.
I wasn't able to work at my full level of technical ability and I found this frustrating
Maybe the secret agenda of the Microsoft Linux Lab is to corner the most talented Linux developers and discourage them so completely that they'll never compete with MS again. This one got away, but how many more have been ensnared?
Re:If you replace enough files...About Hard Work
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
that attitude has absolutely no respect for the hard work of others.
And the attitude of trying to lock it to only your own virtually identical, but higher priced, hardware has no respect for users who like your software, but feel gouged or ripped-off by your overpriced hardware. Truth is Apple has proven more than once that it cannot compete with other hardware vendors on its own platform. All the rest of this does is prove that Apple really is just a software company after all.
Even the best-trained human eyes and ears, according to Kip, can't detect the change.
But a pretty dumb file compare program will have no problem. Compare two versions of the file to see where the changes are. Compare them to a third version to assess how different each watermark is. Then fiddle bits to create your own version that they cannot no longer trace back to you.
It will cost more to deploy the embedding software and panoply of infringement detectors than defeating this mechanism, which leads me to wonder about its cost effectiveness. It will only catch the dumb crooks, and not likely even scare the smart ones.
Reminds me of how multi-thousand dollar traffic enforcement cameras are defeated by a low tech can of spray paint.
Apple should decide how much profit it makes from each iPod, and that amount is the licensing fee for others to build compatible hardware. It shouldn't matter to Apple if they get their money through their own h/w sales, or from fees because someone else has built a competitive or cheaper unit.
As far as the download business goes, in theory no legal download site is getting their product on terms any more favorable than Apple. Apple should charge a reasonable (e.g. $0.03 per download) royalty for the use of its FairPlay DRM. After which, if others want to sell music effectively at cost then let them do it in the market.
This would be the most fair outcome for both the users and the companies involved.
If FairPlay is a patent, then it should eventually expire. If it's not patented (a distinct possibility under the DMCA) then Apple deserves no protection from others reverse engineering and using it themselves.
Google is Evil when they help a repressive government jail or otherwise punish a person for use of the Internet in any fashion that is not illegal in the United States. There are no two-ways about it.
RIM is asking the court not to impose an injunction on devices that have already been sold. The Canadian company argues that it already has an implied license with NTP on these devices, and so they shouldn't be covered by an injunction.
The reason: A jury found RIM guilty of infringing on NTP's licenses in 2002. RIM lost its bid to overturn that verdict. So, even if the Patent Office throws out NTP's patents, RIM still has to pay royalties for the time up until the patents are overturned.
Okay, if RIM is:
1: Having to pay royalties still on every unit sold.
2: Has a workaround to avoid the patent they are paying royalties on.
3: Says there's no difference to the end-user to use this workaround.
4: Says all new *ackBerries have the new code in them already.
Then why haven't they rolled out this workaround already ASAP. It would:
1: Make any court injunction moot.
2: Reduce the number of units that they owe royalties on.
Methinks there's more to this that's not being told yet.
Does this mean then that there is no waiting till tomorrow to see what karma your Slashdot post generates, then zipping back to yesterday to fix it, before returning to today to relax knowing what karma your Slashdot post will have generated by tomorrow?
Slashdot Mirror
Better.
Cheaper.
Easier to Use.
If he can get it to run off of old AOL CDs the power problem is solved for all of us.
Are you sure this isn't a description of the Amiga OS?
Really? H.264 is quite compute intensive. Does an iPod really pack this much power?
And how about desired features like fast-forward and instantaneous skipping to the next scene?
Sounds like Spin to me.
The VCs probably love however.
You should consider this as a new sig line.
The only one I don't understand is CRAP.
You can't fix this with a driver. If you could this would be a non-issue. The video card needs a Trusted Computing Module chip installed that contains secret keys that the user cannot access. No chip = No HDCP. And it's not like there's a socket on most video cards waiting to be populated.
I believe there are already external HDCP decoders available in the market. A previous topic listed them for sale in Europe.
I predict a lot of hits on the Wayback Machine this week.
How about Office Everything, for those of us who what to spend the most amount of money possible on features we'll never need -- but love to boast about?
And once it exists, how long before the **AA is demanding that legislators give them access to it as well? After all, they clearly feel that protection of their IP rights is more important than anything else -- and they have money to make themselves heard in this regard.
Be great to have this shipped with your computer, and the white wall behind your work area becomes your display.
Maybe the secret agenda of the Microsoft Linux Lab is to corner the most talented Linux developers and discourage them so completely that they'll never compete with MS again. This one got away, but how many more have been ensnared?
And the attitude of trying to lock it to only your own virtually identical, but higher priced, hardware has no respect for users who like your software, but feel gouged or ripped-off by your overpriced hardware. Truth is Apple has proven more than once that it cannot compete with other hardware vendors on its own platform. All the rest of this does is prove that Apple really is just a software company after all.
Can it be an accident that Apple OSx86 is cracked faster than the XBox 360?
But does it run Linux?
That assumes you're using Exchange in the first place. Not everybody does.
But a pretty dumb file compare program will have no problem. Compare two versions of the file to see where the changes are. Compare them to a third version to assess how different each watermark is. Then fiddle bits to create your own version that they cannot no longer trace back to you.
It will cost more to deploy the embedding software and panoply of infringement detectors than defeating this mechanism, which leads me to wonder about its cost effectiveness. It will only catch the dumb crooks, and not likely even scare the smart ones.
Reminds me of how multi-thousand dollar traffic enforcement cameras are defeated by a low tech can of spray paint.
Darn, now I have to go sell my palladium stash that I have put away just in case someone actually made it work the old fashioned way.
As far as the download business goes, in theory no legal download site is getting their product on terms any more favorable than Apple. Apple should charge a reasonable (e.g. $0.03 per download) royalty for the use of its FairPlay DRM. After which, if others want to sell music effectively at cost then let them do it in the market.
This would be the most fair outcome for both the users and the companies involved.
If FairPlay is a patent, then it should eventually expire. If it's not patented (a distinct possibility under the DMCA) then Apple deserves no protection from others reverse engineering and using it themselves.
Can free agency be far behind for Al Michaels? Once he's eligable his value should really soar.
Because Google promotes themselves as the Do no Evil company. Most other companies don't.
Google is Evil when they help a repressive government jail or otherwise punish a person for use of the Internet in any fashion that is not illegal in the United States. There are no two-ways about it.
The reason: A jury found RIM guilty of infringing on NTP's licenses in 2002. RIM lost its bid to overturn that verdict. So, even if the Patent Office throws out NTP's patents, RIM still has to pay royalties for the time up until the patents are overturned.
Okay, if RIM is:
1: Having to pay royalties still on every unit sold.
2: Has a workaround to avoid the patent they are paying royalties on.
3: Says there's no difference to the end-user to use this workaround.
4: Says all new *ackBerries have the new code in them already.
Then why haven't they rolled out this workaround already ASAP. It would:
1: Make any court injunction moot.
2: Reduce the number of units that they owe royalties on.
Methinks there's more to this that's not being told yet.
Does this mean then that there is no waiting till tomorrow to see what karma your Slashdot post generates, then zipping back to yesterday to fix it, before returning to today to relax knowing what karma your Slashdot post will have generated by tomorrow?