to keep the monkeys ($10/hr teenagers) from playing the the multi-million dollar projectors and trying to 'fix' them when they need minor adjustments.
Actually I believe the article mentioned something about physical tamper resistance and having to get passwords from someone just to open the machine without it locking down... though I can't double check that now because the article now apparently redirects to some idiotic registration screen (?!)...
I think the purpose of it was to keep aforementioned $10/hr teenagers from ripping brand new movies off of the machine.
Would you, if you were a corporate IT admin, let your end users go into their bios and change cpu clock speeds if they wanted to, or would you lock them out of everything for simplicity sake?
If said locking out somehow prevented them from doing their job or made them less efficient at it then the lockouts would be unacceptable.
I know. How generous and thoughtful of Sony to do something like accept that people should be able to use their own personal private property however they like. They should be nominated for a nobel prize. All those criminals who would do something so heinous as to write their own code should be thrown in jail immediately.
But if the exploit allowed is of limited utility then that's a Good Thing.
Is it of limited utility? The summary says "run arbitrary code".
Sure it does, since it contains many exploits, and makes crackers' work more difficult
How difficult it was for the crackers to find the hole in the first place does not matter to chrome users. Someone will figure it out sooner or later, and in the end it's just another metaspoit module that takes 10 seconds to use.
most of these "it's not really open source" comments are from people coming from a purely Apple or Microsoft background who have no fucking clue what open source is to begin with.
Good point. Doesn't he remember being asked before being born if he wanted to be attracted to guys or girls? I do. It was right after the questions asking what I want my favorite color to be and if I want to be right or left handed. I can't imagine why anyone would chose the gay option given how much more difficult it would make their life. Perhaps he just wasn't properly informed about his choices. I guess he can complain to his god about that.
even if Steam for some reason went bankrupt, they'll release your games DRM free.
The steam fanbois love saying this. And I always ask them: where has anyone official from Steam ever said that? Quote please. They always seem to dodge the question or put their head back in the sand.
Unless you commit financial fraud through something like a charge back
WTF? Does Valve pay you to post this? A chargeback is not necessarily financial fraud. Regardless, there is no justification for them to block access to anything other than the software involved with the chargeback. There is no reason to block every game on the account.
My video game experience? Really? I have *actually* been in restricted areas of an international airport. I guarantee you I could have brought that device with me.
You've still yet to address the initial issue: your claim that DRM equates to some third party taking control over a person's computer.
Well actually I never made that claim. Someone else did before I replied. It is true to an extent, however. I do not have total control over *my* device during FBI warnings, the movie studio has some of it. I think all I can do is turn it off and maybe go back to the root menu.
What *you* want, and what puts you in prima-donna status, is to watch a movie without any concern or obligation to those that created the movie and made it available to you.
"without any concern or obligation?" Totally untrue and I have authentic discs and netflix charges on my credit card to prove it. I do not download movies illegally from the internet, I pay for them. Those are the only considerations of mine they have any reasonable expectation to. I'm not hollywood's doormat. The firmware in my DVD player or software and what I want *my* devices to do are not hollywood's business on principle alone. Bribing congress into passing laws to force people to give that control is absolutely not the right thing to do. For that reason movie studios don't even deserve the consideration they already get from me. I'm very much inclined to respect movie studios as much as they respect me, but the the risk of a lawsuit dissuades me.
Well glad to see you're finnally on the same page as to what people *want*...
There are no such conditions to agree to when buying a DVD. All you need to do to come to own a DVD is hand over a certain amount of cash and it becomes yours.
The reason your hypothetical terms to accept don't exist is due to hollywood's unethically purchased DMCA law. Even if you get a DVD player manufacturer who wants to sell a restriction-free player and a customer who wants to buy it together, it is illegal for that purchase to happen. That clearly isn't any normal form of commerce. I have first hand experience with this, actually. I once distributed DVD software on one of my web sites which ignored such restrictions and I received a DMCA takedown notice.
My purchase of a DVD player is between me and the manufacturer. Hollywood has no right to demand things neither of us are particularly interested be built into into that DVD player (unless they wanted to compensate us, like I said...). They've forced their way into this transaction with the law. I can clearly see who the prima-donna is here.
Slashdot Mirror
How can the seat you're sitting in start descending at 11000 ft/min and you not feel it? You'd feel pulled towards the ceiling.
Actually I believe the article mentioned something about physical tamper resistance and having to get passwords from someone just to open the machine without it locking down... though I can't double check that now because the article now apparently redirects to some idiotic registration screen (?!)...
I think the purpose of it was to keep aforementioned $10/hr teenagers from ripping brand new movies off of the machine.
If said locking out somehow prevented them from doing their job or made them less efficient at it then the lockouts would be unacceptable.
Or blame sony for the DRM that makes changing the lenses more complicated than it needs to be?
I know. How generous and thoughtful of Sony to do something like accept that people should be able to use their own personal private property however they like. They should be nominated for a nobel prize. All those criminals who would do something so heinous as to write their own code should be thrown in jail immediately.
No you aren't.
iptables -t filter -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT
At no point is anything incorrectly dropped or accepted.
Is it of limited utility? The summary says "run arbitrary code".
How difficult it was for the crackers to find the hole in the first place does not matter to chrome users. Someone will figure it out sooner or later, and in the end it's just another metaspoit module that takes 10 seconds to use.
Testament to their effectiveness? If they broken through then they were not effective.
It doesn't really matter how hard they made it if they aren't actually containing exploits, or at least some of them.
Which provider's implementation is not flawed?
Completely incorrect.
I know. It's not as if they built android on a heap of other people's open source work or anything, right?
So it's closed. Gotcha.
Neither.
Not sure why I would sell a web app on an app store.
Why is that such a big deal?
Good point. Doesn't he remember being asked before being born if he wanted to be attracted to guys or girls? I do. It was right after the questions asking what I want my favorite color to be and if I want to be right or left handed. I can't imagine why anyone would chose the gay option given how much more difficult it would make their life. Perhaps he just wasn't properly informed about his choices. I guess he can complain to his god about that.
The steam fanbois love saying this. And I always ask them: where has anyone official from Steam ever said that? Quote please. They always seem to dodge the question or put their head back in the sand.
WTF? Does Valve pay you to post this? A chargeback is not necessarily financial fraud. Regardless, there is no justification for them to block access to anything other than the software involved with the chargeback. There is no reason to block every game on the account.
My video game experience? Really? I have *actually* been in restricted areas of an international airport. I guarantee you I could have brought that device with me.
All that is "far easier" than spending $30?
Citation?
Voting with your wallet doesn't work. Most of the people voting don't know what the DRM is all about.
I sure trust that person more than I trust google.
What idiot trusts a single hard drive?
Well actually I never made that claim. Someone else did before I replied. It is true to an extent, however. I do not have total control over *my* device during FBI warnings, the movie studio has some of it. I think all I can do is turn it off and maybe go back to the root menu.
"without any concern or obligation?" Totally untrue and I have authentic discs and netflix charges on my credit card to prove it. I do not download movies illegally from the internet, I pay for them. Those are the only considerations of mine they have any reasonable expectation to. I'm not hollywood's doormat. The firmware in my DVD player or software and what I want *my* devices to do are not hollywood's business on principle alone. Bribing congress into passing laws to force people to give that control is absolutely not the right thing to do. For that reason movie studios don't even deserve the consideration they already get from me. I'm very much inclined to respect movie studios as much as they respect me, but the the risk of a lawsuit dissuades me.
Well glad to see you're finnally on the same page as to what people *want*...
There are no such conditions to agree to when buying a DVD. All you need to do to come to own a DVD is hand over a certain amount of cash and it becomes yours.
The reason your hypothetical terms to accept don't exist is due to hollywood's unethically purchased DMCA law. Even if you get a DVD player manufacturer who wants to sell a restriction-free player and a customer who wants to buy it together, it is illegal for that purchase to happen. That clearly isn't any normal form of commerce. I have first hand experience with this, actually. I once distributed DVD software on one of my web sites which ignored such restrictions and I received a DMCA takedown notice.
My purchase of a DVD player is between me and the manufacturer. Hollywood has no right to demand things neither of us are particularly interested be built into into that DVD player (unless they wanted to compensate us, like I said...). They've forced their way into this transaction with the law. I can clearly see who the prima-donna is here.