They use the OBD-II interface (Same interface the DEQ guys use to make sure your car isn't pumping out too many noxious fumes.) 5 seconds of data are stored in an EEPROM.
It only works for the companies that do this IF WE KEEP BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS.
If Moving Jobs Offshore = Boycotts & No Customers
then IT doesn't work...
Just my $0.02.
"Initial customer feedback from the entertainment industry in general has been very favorable," Eades added.
Apparently Phoenix and their OEMs need to be re-educated about who their customers are.
I've never owned an OEM PC, but have been considering Dell for my next box. If I find Dell is using a DRM'd BIOS that I can't turn off, the box will return to Dell.
Optimisticly speaking, this development has a number of potentially positive outcomes for us: A. Pheonix & OEMS again re-educated about the fact that customers value their privacy. B. Hackers paying more attenting to contents and modification of BIOS. C. Motivation for additional development of OpenBIOS projects. D. A court case regarding the rights of customers who purchase PCs and produce content with them. (OK, this one is a long shot...)
Comments: efdtt.c Author: Charles M. Hannum Thanks to Phil Carmody for additional tweaks. Length: 434 bytes (excluding unnecessary newlines) Usage is: cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt >clear.vob
#!/usr/bin/perl
# 472-byte qrpff, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz
# MPEG 2 PS VOB file -> descrambled output on stdout.
# usage: perl -I:::: qrpff
# where k1..k5 are the title key bytes in least to most-significant order
s''$/=\2048;while(){G=29;R=142;if((@a=unqT="C*",_) [20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV,qb2 5,_;H=73;O=$b[4]>8^(P=(E=255)&(Q>>12^Q>>4^Q/8^Q))> 8^(E&(F=(S=O>>14&7^O)
^S*8^S>=8
)+=P+(~F&E))for@a[128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s/[D-HO- U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval
Lessig states that: "First, and most obviously, open-source software is based in intellectual-property rights."
While this is true, we can observe WIPO's actual goals by their ACTIONS. WIPO's ACTIONS show that WIPO intends to protect and expand Intellectual Property rights when they result in profits for WIPO's member states and their corporations.
Conversly, WIPO can be counted on to act against Intellectual Property rights that do not result in profits for WIPO's member state corporations.
On a seperate note, is it reasonable to increase the cost of BSA's lobbyists by causing them to recieve more snail mail? Would anyone like Emery Simon to be treated like a spam king, and for Emery Simon to recieve a spam king's snail mail load? I don't suppose anyone has access to Emery's personal information? Or is this an overused solution already?
...if only someone would post Shane Atkinson's Address and Phone Number. I don't think 20 phone calls is enough. I think Shane Atkinson needs to experience the power of "internet karma..."
I'll be watching for any details you might post. -EtA
The government's actions (in this case) provides electronic security professionals (and "crackers" if you prefer) with a "perverse incentive."
"Why Information Security is Hard - An Economic Perspective." http://www.acsac.org/2001/abstracts /thu-1530-b-and erson.html
"In a survey of fraud against autoteller machines [4], it was found that the patterns of fraud depended on who was liable for them. In the USA, if a customer disputed a transaction, the onus was on the bank to prove that the customer was mistaken or lying; this gave US banks a motive to protect their systems properly. But in Britain, Norway and the Netherlands, the burden of proof lay on the customer: the bank was right unless the customer could prove it wrong. Since this was almost impossible, the banks in these countries became careless. Eventually, epidemics of fraud demolish their complacency. US banks, meanwhile, suffered much less fraud; although they actually spent less money on security then their European counterparts, they spent it more effectively [4]."
If the government's goal is a more secure Internet, the government should encourage actions via incentive that result in more secure systems. It is clear that if Bret McDanel had not informed Tornado Development's customers of the security problem, Tornado would have done nothing to repair it.
If you subscribe to Ross Anderson's theories, the government's actions provide incentive for security technicians to take the following actions on the discovery of a security vulnerability:
1. Don't talk or write about it without obscuring the publishers identity. 2. Exploit the vulnerability for personal gain.
Heavy handed prosecution of people like Bret McDanel will lead to a less secure internet.
Generally, you bench mark specific tasks. If you are interested in Integer Calculations and software that uses Integer Calculations only, you bench mark that. If you are benchmarking a particular bit of software, you define a well known easily reproduced task and benchmark that. If you want to benchmark Quake video performance, you enable the FPS counter and benchmark that.
Good Benchmarks require good benchmark definitions. Hope that helps. -EtA
Basically, he setup a number of FPGAs to acomplish a certian goal (testing a human generated sound like the work "GO") by setting up a "standard genetic algorithm to evolve a configuration program for an FPGA."
His hardware basically evolved to acomplish the defined task. I'd like to read about someone doing this on a grander scale... Say 1024 FPGAs?
-EtA
Yeah! Now we can have our screen saver and Applications running at the same time! WooHoo! And the Screen Saver won't take up any CPU cycles. Too bad we can have something other than fishies:>
Good point. Maybe the FSF can sue SCO as well, pierce their "corporate veil" and go after SCO's officers. This is unlikely, but it 'shore would be cool.
-EtA
I don't think "extortion money" is the term the lawyers would use, but your point about EVERY Linux contributor now sueing SCO for the violation of the GPL and the theft of IP is facinating.
Indeed, SCO has effectivly co-opted Intellectual Property that belongs to a large community. The Free Software Foundation and other such orginazations would be the most likly entities to represent the Linux community at large in such an endevor.
Still, I think such an action may be wasted effort. I read IBM's counter suit in part today. My bet is IBM is going to pound SCO into the ground every time this issue comes before a judge.
Don't get in a pissing fight with a skunk. At least this time the skunk is on our side:>
-EtA
You are probably right for the reasons you mention as well as the likely hood that IBM and SCO will settle out of court.
There is just a small chance that IBM will press their counter-suit. In that case, we may yet hear a judgement on the legal enforcability of the GPL.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
I agree that the DMCA needs to be turned against the RIAA in some manner. I've been trying to find a way to do this.
Unfortunatly, if you are sharing files to the general public, most judges would say you have no expectation to privacy when the RIAA checks your file share.
The best alternative I can come up with is creating an RIAA honey pot. This might be acomplished by sharing files whose names contain strings that the RIAA is likely to be searching for. The files shared should not contain copy right protected material, unless that material is copy right protected by your self.
This would acomplish two things.
1. It would slow the RIAA's search of the "file share space."
2. It would cause the RIAA to expend effort in identifying your IP addresses.
3. It may cause the RIAA to falsly subpoena your ISP for your information, which *may* give rise to privacy claims against the RIAA.
I continue to search for better ideas. If we can identify a successful way to turn the DCMA against the RIAA, perhaps they both can be made less potent.
-EtA
No. The Taliban is indefensible.
I will speak out when the United States Government breaks the law. And when the arrest a guy who looks the wrong way and practices the wrong religion and hides him away for five weeks and THEN he pleads guilty, I have to believe him before I believe the US government.
Slashdot Mirror
Check:w ww.accidentreconstruction.com/research/edr /faq.asp
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087207/
http://
They use the OBD-II interface (Same interface the DEQ guys use to make sure your car isn't pumping out too many noxious fumes.) 5 seconds of data are stored in an EEPROM.
"How do we educate our judicial system?"
:>
Take and pass a federal bar exam, file a well written brief that the justices can understand... and prepare "educational" oral arguments
-eTa
It only works for the companies that do this IF WE KEEP BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS. If Moving Jobs Offshore = Boycotts & No Customers then IT doesn't work... Just my $0.02.
"Initial customer feedback from the entertainment industry in general has been very favorable," Eades added.
Apparently Phoenix and their OEMs need to be re-educated about who their customers are.
I've never owned an OEM PC, but have been considering Dell for my next box. If I find Dell is using a DRM'd BIOS that I can't turn off, the box will return to Dell.
Optimisticly speaking, this development has a number of potentially positive outcomes for us:
A. Pheonix & OEMS again re-educated about the fact that customers value their privacy.
B. Hackers paying more attenting to contents and modification of BIOS.
C. Motivation for additional development of OpenBIOS projects.
D. A court case regarding the rights of customers who purchase PCs and produce content with them. (OK, this one is a long shot...)
At the risk of sounding like a script kidd13, Does any one out there have a FOR look hungry for spammer personal info? You ALL know the algorithm...
a me+address+city+state+zip") DO
for each (SPAMMER on SHITLIST) DO
for each (hit on "http://www.google.com/search?q=request+catalog+n
POST SPAMMER.NAME&ADDRESS&CITY&STATE&ZI P
POST SPAMMER."Why Yes! I'd love a copy of your catalog"
next
next
Ahh Crap! What the heck do I do with my sign finger?
:>
Hey, Wait! Who counts signed integers on their fingers? Most people I know count unsigned base 10 integers only...
Cool! Now I can count to 242 on one hand! Sure makes my knuckles hurt though.
... then you got to know how to hack the DeathStar. Teach me more Billy!
Comments:
y >14,y=a^a*8^a>8^y/n."[k>>4]*2^k*257/8,s[j]=k^(k&k* 2&34)
efdtt.c Author: Charles M. Hannum Thanks to Phil Carmody for additional tweaks. Length: 434 bytes (excluding unnecessary newlines) Usage is: cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt >clear.vob
#define m(i)(x[i]^s[i+84])y)c+=y=i^i/8^i>>4^i>>12,i=i>>8^
*6^c+~y;}}
#!/usr/bin/perl # 472-byte qrpff, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz # MPEG 2 PS VOB file -> descrambled output on stdout. # usage: perl -I :::: qrpff
# where k1..k5 are the title key bytes in least to most-significant order
s''$/=\2048;while(){G=29;R=142;if((@a=unqT="C*",_) [20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV,qb2 5,_;H=73;O=$b[4]>8^(P=(E=255)&(Q>>12^Q>>4^Q/8^Q))> 8^(E&(F=(S=O>>14&7^O)
^S*8^S>=8
)+=P+(~F&E))for@a[128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s/[D-HO- U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval
Lessig states that: "First, and most obviously, open-source software is based in intellectual-property rights."
While this is true, we can observe WIPO's actual goals by their ACTIONS. WIPO's ACTIONS show that WIPO intends to protect and expand Intellectual Property rights when they result in profits for WIPO's member states and their corporations.
Conversly, WIPO can be counted on to act against Intellectual Property rights that do not result in profits for WIPO's member state corporations.
On a seperate note, is it reasonable to increase the cost of BSA's lobbyists by causing them to recieve more snail mail? Would anyone like Emery Simon to be treated like a spam king, and for Emery Simon to recieve a spam king's snail mail load? I don't suppose anyone has access to Emery's personal information? Or is this an overused solution already?
-EtA
...if only someone would post Shane Atkinson's Address and Phone Number. I don't think 20 phone calls is enough. I think Shane Atkinson needs to experience the power of "internet karma..."
I'll be watching for any details you might post.
-EtA
The government's actions (in this case) provides electronic security professionals (and "crackers" if you prefer) with a "perverse incentive."
s /thu-1530-b-and erson.html
"Why Information Security is Hard - An Economic Perspective."
http://www.acsac.org/2001/abstract
"In a survey of fraud against autoteller machines [4], it was found that the patterns of fraud depended on who was liable for them. In the USA, if a customer disputed a transaction, the onus was on the bank to prove that the customer was mistaken or lying; this gave US banks a motive to protect their systems properly. But in Britain, Norway and the Netherlands, the burden of proof lay on the customer: the bank was right unless the customer could prove it wrong. Since this was almost impossible, the banks in these countries became careless. Eventually, epidemics of fraud demolish their complacency. US banks, meanwhile, suffered much less fraud; although they actually spent less money on security then their European counterparts, they spent it more effectively [4]."
If the government's goal is a more secure Internet, the government should encourage actions via incentive that result in more secure systems. It is clear that if Bret McDanel had not informed Tornado Development's customers of the security problem, Tornado would have done nothing to repair it.
If you subscribe to Ross Anderson's theories, the government's actions provide incentive for security technicians to take the following actions on the discovery of a security vulnerability:
1. Don't talk or write about it without obscuring the publishers identity.
2. Exploit the vulnerability for personal gain.
Heavy handed prosecution of people like Bret McDanel will lead to a less secure internet.
Generally, you bench mark specific tasks. If you are interested in Integer Calculations and software that uses Integer Calculations only, you bench mark that. If you are benchmarking a particular bit of software, you define a well known easily reproduced task and benchmark that. If you want to benchmark Quake video performance, you enable the FPS counter and benchmark that.
Good Benchmarks require good benchmark definitions. Hope that helps.
-EtA
This guy came up with a way to evolve designs for FPGAs.
Article at New Scientist
Basically, he setup a number of FPGAs to acomplish a certian goal (testing a human generated sound like the work "GO") by setting up a "standard genetic algorithm to evolve a configuration program for an FPGA." His hardware basically evolved to acomplish the defined task. I'd like to read about someone doing this on a grander scale... Say 1024 FPGAs?
-EtA
Yeah! Now we can have our screen saver and Applications running at the same time! WooHoo! And the Screen Saver won't take up any CPU cycles. Too bad we can have something other than fishies :>
... so their burgers don't look so flat.
Jason? Freddy? Edward Scissor Hands? Janet Reno?
Can I buy a game from O'Really called Slash'EM?
Good point. Maybe the FSF can sue SCO as well, pierce their "corporate veil" and go after SCO's officers. This is unlikely, but it 'shore would be cool. -EtA
I don't think "extortion money" is the term the lawyers would use, but your point about EVERY Linux contributor now sueing SCO for the violation of the GPL and the theft of IP is facinating. Indeed, SCO has effectivly co-opted Intellectual Property that belongs to a large community. The Free Software Foundation and other such orginazations would be the most likly entities to represent the Linux community at large in such an endevor. Still, I think such an action may be wasted effort. I read IBM's counter suit in part today. My bet is IBM is going to pound SCO into the ground every time this issue comes before a judge. Don't get in a pissing fight with a skunk. At least this time the skunk is on our side :>
-EtA
You are probably right for the reasons you mention as well as the likely hood that IBM and SCO will settle out of court. There is just a small chance that IBM will press their counter-suit. In that case, we may yet hear a judgement on the legal enforcability of the GPL. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
I agree that the DMCA needs to be turned against the RIAA in some manner. I've been trying to find a way to do this. Unfortunatly, if you are sharing files to the general public, most judges would say you have no expectation to privacy when the RIAA checks your file share. The best alternative I can come up with is creating an RIAA honey pot. This might be acomplished by sharing files whose names contain strings that the RIAA is likely to be searching for. The files shared should not contain copy right protected material, unless that material is copy right protected by your self. This would acomplish two things. 1. It would slow the RIAA's search of the "file share space." 2. It would cause the RIAA to expend effort in identifying your IP addresses. 3. It may cause the RIAA to falsly subpoena your ISP for your information, which *may* give rise to privacy claims against the RIAA. I continue to search for better ideas. If we can identify a successful way to turn the DCMA against the RIAA, perhaps they both can be made less potent. -EtA
No. The Taliban is indefensible. I will speak out when the United States Government breaks the law. And when the arrest a guy who looks the wrong way and practices the wrong religion and hides him away for five weeks and THEN he pleads guilty, I have to believe him before I believe the US government.
Sure. Great. The US Gestopo rides again. I am again more afraid of my government that of the "terrorists."