Well, as you can see I referred to the fictional Sixth Republic of France, so I didn't want to use the €. But I didn't know that it was FF instead of just F.
Btw,/. naturally does not recognise the € sign, as its charset is iso-8859-1, aka latin-1. The € sign is not part of that charset; AFAIK only iso-8859-15, aka latin-9 (and closely resembling latin-1), and various Unicode charsets, such as UTF-8, have the € sign included.
The right to burn a car is your fundamental right to exercise your Liberty in the Sixth Republic of France. Note, however, that when burning a car, you need to carefully check, whether the the design of the car is Free; that is, it is licensed as GNU GPL. If it is, you're obliged to use a version of Molotov's coctail that's formula is licensed under a GPL compatible license to ignite the car, as the coctail is then linked to the car by the fire and is as such, becomes a derivative work of it.
Those using a non-Free or a non-GPL-compatible version of Molotov's coctail when burning a car shall be subject to a fine of up to 10,000 F and the material costs of the burned car.
When asked about EMI's statement however, Apple said in so many words that it wants to know what EMI is smoking and where it can get some, stating that there's no agreement in place and none on the horizon.
So, nothing new under the sun. Besides, (still FTFA) what reason is there for Apple to license FairPlay to EMI, Macrovision, or anyone else?
Yeah, that's a good question. Why would Apple support discs with DRM? Making things more cumbersome for their customers does not help their bottom line for sure.
Now this is another issue. Sony is marketing their discs as CDs [sonymusicstore.com], but their are not campatible with standard CD players??? They can't slap the CD [wikipedia.org] logo anywhere they want and get away with it. They have to follow the standards [wikipedia.org], or call their DRM discs something else and anounce in big bold letters that such disc may not be playable in all devices.
I wonder how many times I have to say this: including a rootkit installer, fired by autorun, to data session of a multisession disc does NOT make it non-standard. Just do not let the autorun run, and you've got a standard CD. See my previous post.
No, no, no, no and no. If I have a CD that has some audio tracks and a data track on it, it is just a perfectly standards conforming multisession CD. I personally own many such discs with CD-DA logo printed on them (no DRM, just some videos etc.). If a data track on a disc happens to have a file called autorun.inf, that tells Windows to execute another file called InstallDRMRootkit.exe, it won't make the disc itself any way non-standard. CD standard does not dictate contents of a data track!
The myth that no copyprotected CDs are standards conforming comes from the older generation copy protections, which relied on deliberate redbook errors and unclosed data sessions instead of Windows' autorun.
Besides, many standard discs without DRM no longer have any CD-DA logos printed on them either.
Multisession CDs are valid audio CDs, provided that the audio tracks are located before data session. They have existed years before anyone had even thought copy protecting CDs. The whole rumour that copyprotected discs are not valid is due to first generation copy protections that relied on deliberate errors on audio tracks (that also reduced sound quality) and/or unclosed data sessions.
This recent protections only rely on assumption that people are running Windows and that they are folly enough to let the autoplay run.
Well, more or less yes... sorry.:) I intentionally omitted “I” from the first sentence, but otherwise I'm not sure at all about what is wrong in those other spots that you've emphasized.
But I bet that mine was still far from the most horrible statements that you can find on/.!
AFAIK, the rootkit is the only protection on this CD. As they admit, it looks like a normal CD to an Apple computer - and, of course, to a Linux computer. And, for that matter, to a Windows computer with Autorun disabled...
Well, tried to tell that before. It is just a standard CD with a data track on it. I think that the labels no more dare to try anything else, because standard CDs are for sure the only CDs that are quaranteed to work in standalone players. First generation protections used unclosed data sessions (quite ineffective and easy to circumvent) or deliberate Red Book errors on tracks (somewhat reduces sound quality), and generated lots of complaints, because they did not necessarily work on all players.
This naturally means that such “DRM” relies entirely to the assumptions that users are running Windows and that they are stupid enough to let the autoplay run in first place.
Personally, I couldn't care less of this sort of “DRM”; it is much easier to bypass than that of iTMS, for example, and I still get the uncompressed CD-quality audio tracks extracted that I want. The bad thing is that the CP logo printed on the case does not tell the actual technology in use; one has to Google for it.
Clearly some new definition of "insightful" is being applied here... perhaps one where it means the same thing as "wrong" or "ill-reasoned" or "prone to political name-calling to discourage critical thought".
Well yes, that is exactly the definition of “insightful” in newspeak!
The problem is, that those discs most likely actually meet Red Book standards. The first generation of copy protections didn't, but I think that nowadays discs just have standard data tracks added to them, and the activation of DRM relies entirely on Windows' autoplay. Skip autoplay, and the disc behaves like normal CD with a data track on the end of it.
What is really evil is, that they could even slap the Compact Disc – Digital Audio logo to such a disc, because the disc is technically OK.
I think I'll call my next computer a Commodore 64, since it's obsolete and there's virtually no risk of confusion.
No, it's not. While not actually wildly used, there are still emulators, people are really using software programmed for it (old games etc.), even creating new programs (demos) for it. Heck, even real C64 hardware still exists. If you have an old box under your desk called C64, you're not going to put new one next to it and call it C64.
Instead, who the hell is nowadays programming anything using OpenDoc APIs? Who even regularly uses software, that supports OpenDoc, save the few, who are still running ClarisWorks in Mac OS Classic?
Bullshit. What once was OpenDoc is now totally obsolete..DOC, instead, is the most widespread word processor document format in the world, so it is only convient and logical to call the open and standards-based alternative "OpenDoc".
Not that ODF is bad either, but the risk of confusion between OpenDoc and OpenDocument is virtually nonexistent. And ODF could also refer to.ODF files, which is the format used by OpenOffice.org Math and the like, and is definitely not among the most important of OpenDocument formats – the file name extension for text documents, which arguably is the most important OpenDocument format, is.ODT.
AFAIK most of the problems caused by Mac OS minor version upgrades are due to invalid system volume permissions. So, to ensure that everything goes smoothly, always run "Repair Disk Permissions" from Disk Utility before installing them.
As OpenOffice 1.1.x (and thus NeoOffice too) handles fonts internally, it has to load native fonts during startup. This can take a long time if you have lot of fonts. OO.o/X11 should start faster, but it may has other problems. See this thread for more information.
And what if the information used in tracking falls to the hands of a totalitarian government? Let's see what could happen in say, China:
Used to be like this:
<print>
Free Tibet!
Democracy now!
Taiwan indepencence!
</print>
Official 1: Who printed this?! Track him down now! Official 2: Sir, it's just an ordinary printout. There is nothing we can do. Official 1: Damn!
But now, welcome to the brave new world:
<print GUID="......">
Free Tibet!
Democracy now!
Taiwan indepencence!
</print>
Official 1: Who printed this?! Track him down now! Official 2: Let's see. This has been printed with HP Color Laserjet 3700n, S/N xxxxxxxxxx. We got information that it was bought by cash from shop XYZ. Official 1: Fine. Raid every building on that area and search for such printers. When you'll find those, check their serial numbers. Do not stop you find the right one! Official 2: Yes, Sir!
Re:Copying your legally-owned DVDs...
on
No Video iPod Coming?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Mod parent up. The DVD CCA will never grant Apple a license to rip CSS-encrypted movies to a hard disk. While it is technically entirely feasible to make DVD ripping as easy as CD ripping, it is not, for legal reasons, anything that a major consumer electronics manufacturer like Apple can do.
This is all just DVD DRM (aka CSS) hard at work, stifling innovation.
If the copyprotection used on a disc is relying entirely on Windows' autoplay to function, the disc itself might be a standard disc, and works on any non-Windows box just like standard discs do. Hell, it even works in Windows, unless you're clueless enough to let the autoplay run.
The first generation copy protected CDs weren't CDs, because they relied on deliberate redbook errors and/or unclosed data sessions. But nowadays it is possible, that copyprotected CDs have the logos. If that is the case, then you know that preventing autoplay is all you need to circumvent it.
It's quite common nowadays that even normal discs won't have the logo, though, so that alone does not necessarily mean anything.
So because FreeBSD is the only one that has killed someone and is left alive anyway, it must be evil. But this in turn means that the evil Google is going to kill is – FreeBSD.
Any larger company won't have this problem, as they have site licenses and will replace whatever was shipped with new machines with their standardised HD images anyway.
What grandparent suggests, however, works only as long as those old versions are provided support, because no large company will run anything important without valid support contracts. This will eventually mean forced upgrades.
Slashdot Mirror
-Frustrated people buy Macintoshes
Huh? Given Microsoft's security record this should mean that Apple's share of PC market is at least 70%...
Red Hat 5 (latest patches) running Apache = Solid
Um. Unless you have a huge staff backporting things in-house, where are you going to get those latest patches for that?
Well, as you can see I referred to the fictional Sixth Republic of France, so I didn't want to use the €. But I didn't know that it was FF instead of just F.
/. naturally does not recognise the € sign, as its charset is iso-8859-1, aka latin-1. The € sign is not part of that charset; AFAIK only iso-8859-15, aka latin-9 (and closely resembling latin-1), and various Unicode charsets, such as UTF-8, have the € sign included.
Btw,
The right to burn a car is your fundamental right to exercise your Liberty in the Sixth Republic of France. Note, however, that when burning a car, you need to carefully check, whether the the design of the car is Free; that is, it is licensed as GNU GPL. If it is, you're obliged to use a version of Molotov's coctail that's formula is licensed under a GPL compatible license to ignite the car, as the coctail is then linked to the car by the fire and is as such, becomes a derivative work of it.
Those using a non-Free or a non-GPL-compatible version of Molotov's coctail when burning a car shall be subject to a fine of up to 10,000 F and the material costs of the burned car.
*ducks*
...or something else, but strong stuff anyway:
When asked about EMI's statement however, Apple said in so many words that it wants to know what EMI is smoking and where it can get some, stating that there's no agreement in place and none on the horizon.
So, nothing new under the sun. Besides, (still FTFA) what reason is there for Apple to license FairPlay to EMI, Macrovision, or anyone else?
Yeah, that's a good question. Why would Apple support discs with DRM? Making things more cumbersome for their customers does not help their bottom line for sure.
Well, iTunes music sharing requires port 3689 to be open to function.
Naturally, it also requires whatever Bonjour requires to work.
That is only required if music sharing is desired, of course.
Now this is another issue. Sony is marketing their discs as CDs [sonymusicstore.com], but their are not campatible with standard CD players??? They can't slap the CD [wikipedia.org] logo anywhere they want and get away with it. They have to follow the standards [wikipedia.org], or call their DRM discs something else and anounce in big bold letters that such disc may not be playable in all devices.
I wonder how many times I have to say this: including a rootkit installer, fired by autorun, to data session of a multisession disc does NOT make it non-standard. Just do not let the autorun run, and you've got a standard CD. See my previous post.
No, no, no, no and no. If I have a CD that has some audio tracks and a data track on it, it is just a perfectly standards conforming multisession CD. I personally own many such discs with CD-DA logo printed on them (no DRM, just some videos etc.). If a data track on a disc happens to have a file called autorun.inf, that tells Windows to execute another file called InstallDRMRootkit.exe, it won't make the disc itself any way non-standard. CD standard does not dictate contents of a data track!
The myth that no copyprotected CDs are standards conforming comes from the older generation copy protections, which relied on deliberate redbook errors and unclosed data sessions instead of Windows' autorun.
Besides, many standard discs without DRM no longer have any CD-DA logos printed on them either.
the unstealable car
;-)
Why, I think MI6 has pretty much achieved that.
(If you didn't get it, Google for it.)
Multisession CDs are valid audio CDs, provided that the audio tracks are located before data session. They have existed years before anyone had even thought copy protecting CDs. The whole rumour that copyprotected discs are not valid is due to first generation copy protections that relied on deliberate errors on audio tracks (that also reduced sound quality) and/or unclosed data sessions.
This recent protections only rely on assumption that people are running Windows and that they are folly enough to let the autoplay run.
WTF? Engrish as a second language?
:) I intentionally omitted “I” from the first sentence, but otherwise I'm not sure at all about what is wrong in those other spots that you've emphasized.
/.!
Well, more or less yes... sorry.
But I bet that mine was still far from the most horrible statements that you can find on
AFAIK, the rootkit is the only protection on this CD. As they admit, it looks like a normal CD to an Apple computer - and, of course, to a Linux computer. And, for that matter, to a Windows computer with Autorun disabled...
Well, tried to tell that before. It is just a standard CD with a data track on it. I think that the labels no more dare to try anything else, because standard CDs are for sure the only CDs that are quaranteed to work in standalone players. First generation protections used unclosed data sessions (quite ineffective and easy to circumvent) or deliberate Red Book errors on tracks (somewhat reduces sound quality), and generated lots of complaints, because they did not necessarily work on all players.
This naturally means that such “DRM” relies entirely to the assumptions that users are running Windows and that they are stupid enough to let the autoplay run in first place.
Personally, I couldn't care less of this sort of “DRM”; it is much easier to bypass than that of iTMS, for example, and I still get the uncompressed CD-quality audio tracks extracted that I want. The bad thing is that the CP logo printed on the case does not tell the actual technology in use; one has to Google for it.
Clearly some new definition of "insightful" is being applied here... perhaps one where it means the same thing as "wrong" or "ill-reasoned" or "prone to political name-calling to discourage critical thought".
Well yes, that is exactly the definition of “insightful” in newspeak!
*ducks*
The problem is, that those discs most likely actually meet Red Book standards. The first generation of copy protections didn't, but I think that nowadays discs just have standard data tracks added to them, and the activation of DRM relies entirely on Windows' autoplay. Skip autoplay, and the disc behaves like normal CD with a data track on the end of it.
What is really evil is, that they could even slap the Compact Disc – Digital Audio logo to such a disc, because the disc is technically OK.
I think I'll call my next computer a Commodore 64, since it's obsolete and there's virtually no risk of confusion.
No, it's not. While not actually wildly used, there are still emulators, people are really using software programmed for it (old games etc.), even creating new programs (demos) for it. Heck, even real C64 hardware still exists. If you have an old box under your desk called C64, you're not going to put new one next to it and call it C64.
Instead, who the hell is nowadays programming anything using OpenDoc APIs? Who even regularly uses software, that supports OpenDoc, save the few, who are still running ClarisWorks in Mac OS Classic?
Bullshit. What once was OpenDoc is now totally obsolete. .DOC, instead, is the most widespread word processor document format in the world, so it is only convient and logical to call the open and standards-based alternative "OpenDoc".
.ODF files, which is the format used by OpenOffice.org Math and the like, and is definitely not among the most important of OpenDocument formats – the file name extension for text documents, which arguably is the most important OpenDocument format, is .ODT.
Not that ODF is bad either, but the risk of confusion between OpenDoc and OpenDocument is virtually nonexistent. And ODF could also refer to
Remember, CIO stands for "Career Is Over"
Sometimes I truly wonder that I still haven't been fired, despite the fact that I'm typing exIT many times a day.
AFAIK most of the problems caused by Mac OS minor version upgrades are due to invalid system volume permissions. So, to ensure that everything goes smoothly, always run "Repair Disk Permissions" from Disk Utility before installing them.
So now they have DRM support in Linux kernel?! Eeeevil!!!
*ducks*
As OpenOffice 1.1.x (and thus NeoOffice too) handles fonts internally, it has to load native fonts during startup. This can take a long time if you have lot of fonts. OO.o/X11 should start faster, but it may has other problems. See this thread for more information.
Used to be like this:
<print>
</print>
Official 1: Who printed this?! Track him down now!
Official 2: Sir, it's just an ordinary printout. There is nothing we can do.
Official 1: Damn!
But now, welcome to the brave new world:
<print GUID="......">
</print>
Official 1: Who printed this?! Track him down now!
Official 2: Let's see. This has been printed with HP Color Laserjet 3700n, S/N xxxxxxxxxx. We got information that it was bought by cash from shop XYZ.
Official 1: Fine. Raid every building on that area and search for such printers. When you'll find those, check their serial numbers. Do not stop you find the right one!
Official 2: Yes, Sir!
Mod parent up. The DVD CCA will never grant Apple a license to rip CSS-encrypted movies to a hard disk. While it is technically entirely feasible to make DVD ripping as easy as CD ripping, it is not, for legal reasons, anything that a major consumer electronics manufacturer like Apple can do.
This is all just DVD DRM (aka CSS) hard at work, stifling innovation.
If the copyprotection used on a disc is relying entirely on Windows' autoplay to function, the disc itself might be a standard disc, and works on any non-Windows box just like standard discs do. Hell, it even works in Windows, unless you're clueless enough to let the autoplay run.
The first generation copy protected CDs weren't CDs, because they relied on deliberate redbook errors and/or unclosed data sessions. But nowadays it is possible, that copyprotected CDs have the logos. If that is the case, then you know that preventing autoplay is all you need to circumvent it.
It's quite common nowadays that even normal discs won't have the logo, though, so that alone does not necessarily mean anything.
So because FreeBSD is the only one that has killed someone and is left alive anyway, it must be evil. But this in turn means that the evil Google is going to kill is – FreeBSD.
I sense a dilemma here.
Any larger company won't have this problem, as they have site licenses and will replace whatever was shipped with new machines with their standardised HD images anyway.
What grandparent suggests, however, works only as long as those old versions are provided support, because no large company will run anything important without valid support contracts. This will eventually mean forced upgrades.