Still, it's pointless to have people who are "supposed to be tech smart" here posting news sites and aggregators that have 5-10 pages of stuff that 1 page would suffice.
And there's the wonderful tools in the Linux kernel for bridges and such that can be made to monitor data as if there was no computer there at all. Also, PF in FreeBSD can route and filter based on much more criteria than Linux netfilter can (like via OS).
You should have a secure layout of your network along with a respectable sensor network. The Sensornet should be separate from the general network.
If you already work in IT, these things should be obvious, as it is the similar measures required for data recovery on non-hack problems.
1. Level grinding sucks. We had to do it in Final Fantasy 1,2,3 and most of 4. Same with Dragon Warrior/Quest series. It sucks.
2. How do you deal with rapidly differing levels of experience? Many places have higher level only places and those aren't fun as they're only high levelers.
3. How do you manage quests for multiple people? This requires real DM's to do, and not set script spawn monsters.
4. Perhaps we ought to integrate a real-time element rather than "hit, hit, hit, chug pot, hit, hit...ad nauseum". I do like the tales of Phantasia RT element.
5. What about griefing? There's always idiots that do that. How do we deal with them? They are paying customers and these companies need the money... ??
6. Many MMO's prevent user-based content. Perhaps adding possessable units (think second life) will bring responsibility.
7. I want player-killing zones. Make certain areas with high resources heavy with pick pockets and pk'ers. Th
Perhaps, at one time, corporations were made with honorable intentions in mind, but that time has far past for most.
Now, all that matters is the numbers on the SEC filing and how much the big wigs will get (iow: more money).
That, and I wonder if they have to do these lawsuits... They obviously have lawyers working solely for them, and perhaps their amount of work wasnt enough to substantiate their jobs. "Proving their worth" could be a big factor in these suits.
The more and more I hear about Registrars and ICANT, the more I hate them.
I wonder what it'd take to develop a new registry for domain names. Just something to get us away from the current set of registrars and their ilk..edu and.gov can handle things rather well. Why not.com? That's right... That commerical aspect.
Is it not true that a citizen must petition the government for the creation of a corporate entity? It just so happens that this permission is handed out cheaply now.
In past days (pre 1907) this permission was not handed out freely, but in only public works that benefitted the public. After the public work was made and done, the corporation was dissolved.
In what way is a corporation not an extension of the government? Government IS bound by those rules.
I have a real bone to pick with that last paragraph. Lets analyse it.
---In that way, America was founded on an appreciation of human nature very close to the Buddhist and Taoist
WRONG. Absolutely wrong. America was founded so these peoples who lived a ways away from Britan could be their own peoples. They also hated the taxes and severe laws in place for their 'subjects'. The rich peoples rebelled to gain their soverignty. They freed the slaves at that time, right?
That's right. Slaves were not completely freed until about 1880, when the last slaves were granted freedom... until they were corraled back in on work farms with the company store. Slavery all over again. Instead, this time is was the debtors and collections that kept them there, not ownership of humans.
This country has always relied on screwing somebody else over to get to the top. If anything, one who is a "failure" here in the US must be his or her fault because they wernt thrifty enough, or they are just stupid, or they havent done without enough. That thinking is very specifically US centric culture, and isnt in many other cultures.
Christanity has done more to remove and pervert native peoples beliefs and customs than has any other group. Along with that, Christanity has been the sole destroyer of knowledge until the recent times.
There's only about 1600 years of actions to prove this true. (325 AD to present)
What's sad is that Christian belief would tell us to love one another. Is telling them that what they believe is wrong loving?
However, I do agree with what Ghandi said:
"Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."
---The hidden volume is put in the empty space of the outer volume. You can't tell it's there because all volumes are filled with random bits upon creation.
I understand that. I'm not going to challenge if the random # gen is actually random, because that is aside the point.
Instead, if one can watch the sectors and bits changed, one can identify after the "sucker" password is given. A hidden volume can be identified. Also, one would have to be absolutely sure that any parts of the unencrypted system does not contain contextural clues indicating a hidden volume. The work required to prevent the OS from knowing is is drastically greater than just providing a cryptofs or stegofs by itself.
---Since a good encryption algorithm's cyphertext looks random, you can't tell if it's still the random data from the format or a hidden volume. You need the hidden volume's key so you can decrypt it and only then will you know that it even exists. When you mount a volume and it asks for a password, it first tries it with the outer volume, and if that fails it looks for a hidden one. So the mounting procedure is identical, only the passwords differ.
By definition of a hidden setup, one should NEVER know if any password works. The fact this program does let you know if it works or not works indicates that there is known data inside the container. Known data can be successfully cracked much easier than unknown data.
---The "data retention" (they call it protection) requires the hidden volume's key. If an attempt is made to write to an area that's part of the hidden volume, then the write will be denied and the outer volume will be thrown into read only mode.
That is unacceptable. By preventing writes to a range of areas deemed hidden allows mapping of hidden data. In filling up a container with a hidden section, one fills up approaching the boundaries of the hidden one, but never encroaching upon it. In order to prevent hiding, one must allow above all overwriting of data. The loss of data can only be mitigated by creating duplicate sectors around the container (with changing encryption codes locked to your start code + salt).
---It must be remounted to be able to write to it again. If you don't give Truecrypt the hidden volume's key and attempt to write over the hidden volume, it will happily oblige because even Truecrypt doesn't know about the hidden volume. You'll corrupt some data, but at least nobody will know it's there. That's the idea.
But that guarantees data loss at ratings appraching 100%. StegFS has sector duplication techniques to prevent that sort of loss when dealing with security contexts above the level you hid things at. It works by allowing contexts (levels) from 0 to N. If you have security context 4, you have 4 and 3 and 2 and 1 and 0. It appears as/mnt/steghda/4 and on. What you hide at level 4, 3 and lower cannot see. This is the default capability, and can be separated in that different levels can only see certain levels above them (due to key pairing techniques). Data can still be lost (and is much preferable to data retention) but is mitigated by thoughtful integration of redundancy.
Oh well. Ive already taken a mod hit (I dont care). Ill respond to your refutation.
---Incorrect, there is no container file inside the first container, and if you don't enter the password for the second container the same time as the first container you *CAN* overwrite the data in the second container, thus corrupting it.
I am talking about this link in which displays a large container and 2 containers inside of it. The text accompanying it is also sort of misleading. What does worry me is this statement:
"NTFS file system stores various data throughout the entire volume (as opposed to FAT) leaving little room for the hidden volume."
This indicates that the hidden volume is just a free-space volume. This can be attacked by my method: get the 'sucker volume' and swap bits on the files stored to get an idea on how big the hidden is.
---From the website (If only people would RTFM (no, I'm not new here)):
I did read the fucking manual (and website). Free space storage can be 'found out' rather readily. Yes, they do use "advanced encryption techniques" and such, but as they warn, someone who has access to the unmounted volume over many writes can prove there are hidden volumes. This is no good thing in any way. Also there is provided a way to "maintain data security": context levels suggested by Shamir is the way to go, and not the Truecrypt way. Placing multiple sectors along with reed solomon codes would allow rebuilding of partially corrupted hidden files, even if somebody knew the password for a specific context.
Also, how does one prevent Windows from cacheing any of this in places it shouldnt? Does Windows even offer a way to encrypt a swap? Or has one hibernated with this program in memory?
At least with Linux, if Im a user, I know my data is in there, and not leaked through the system (well.../tmp and/var at most). Of course, TCB on Linux wouldnt be a bad thing, nor would FreeBSD's security levels.
---The hidden volume protection can be activated only by users who supply the correct password (and/or keyfiles) for the hidden volume (each time they mount the outer volume).
I know you didnt say this, but the fact this is a go/nogo is just wrong from a security standpoint.
If the volume is not hidden, it should be easy to verify good/bad password. However, for the application of the hidden volume phrase, it should NEVER acknolodge if you have a good phrase or bad phrase. In addition to that, there shouldnt even be a check for that. The "hidden" phrase should work for all phrases, but only guarantee hidden data security if it is the same phrase.
My ideas are much eviller in terms of data loss, but that is the price of hiding the data in plain sight. Like I said before, check up on StegFS. I use it, and it's very interesting.. It reminds me of a capability system, but filesystem level.
Why do I call this BS? Encryption is legit and can be proved. Thats a good. And it's open source. Thats good.
They claim to have "hidden" containers. That's false if they guarantee data retention. Why?
If you have a container X big, one can have smaller containers inside that. The key opens the outer container, but exposes the inside (to use their language). Even if these hidden volumes dont have publically readable containers, one can still see them and delete them.
How I would attack this stego: I would obtain a sector-logger via ICE or somesuch driver first. Then I would mount the container and proceed to do a "DOD 7 times rewrite" via eraser or somesuch tool. I then would watch what sectors arent affected. Those would be the hidden ones. Essentially I would show hidden places by what isnt touched.
If truecrypt prevents me from writing on "stego"'ed places, we also have a easy find. No more plausible... Instead, we MUST, at all costs, allow any user to write over the hidden portions to demonstrate that it's just entropy: nothing. To do this, we must be readily able to sacrifice data to prevent capture.
StegFS does this, however it only works for 2.2 kernels. Too bad it's not being worked on, as this project, along with loopback crypto had real promise for very secure stations (thinking laptops and such with super-sensitive data).
GNU tools are on one of the CS's that Sun ships, and I install gnu tools anyways. It's there and easy to use. Sun supports its SunOS well.
Unless Murdoch is reffering to the wonderful "usability" of old and haphazardly done Debian packages, well erm.. let Sun take care of themselves. I like relatively new user-based programs (like, not from the early 90's).
Typed on a Debian Testing machine. Debating to go with Ubuntu..
---I have no problem whatsoever with activation. If people do not want to pay MS prices then there are alternative OSes they can use. There is nothing at all wrong with a company trying to ensure that people actually *pay* for its products.
Registering a product (serial number or likewise) is one thing. Things can be made inconvienant for the casual copier. No technology will deter the big guys, not now, not ever. So, any sort of burden you set up will be absorbed by the honest guy. At worst, you'll alert the honest guy on how to use your programs the way the big pirates do.
---This is the first time I've heard of Windows Activation being referred to as DRM. I think your knee just jerked, or perhaps you thought blasting DRM would garner you positive moderation.
Erm, it IS DRM. Or have you been living in a cave when MS brags how they can completely revoke drivers for the 64 bit vista, or how they can deny activation by their many means.
When a computer gets "revoked" after I PAID my cold hard cash with, I WILL still have it work by hook or by crook. If you call or treat me like a thief, I will become one.
---What you *should* get is -1 (Offtopic)
But you should get a -1 (Retarded, didnt think it through).
---Ah, the usual excuse. "There's more of us, so we can steal all we like from the minority, and it's right". The basic premise of bolsheviks and communists. Where would socialism be today, were it not for the people thinking along these lines?
No, it's more along the lines of "Are you going to prosecute everybody? If not, STFU".
And do you think I agree with that line of thinking? Not really.. but nobody can refute the 20+ million unique visitors to thepiratebay.com per day.
I'm just stating that the way content producers can make money in this environment is by escrowing funds until the limit is reached: they get paid for a work published.
---Why is piracy so staunchly defended in the tech community? I know rationalizations like fair use are quoted but the truth is people want free movies and music.
It's simpler than that. The rest of us apply for a job, and then do the work required for money delivered. Muscicans and such do things backwards: they do the job then whine when somebody uses the service already performed without paying for it. Then they want "protections" so they can do things backwards.
Well, reality recently caught up with content makers. Either switch to a "Agree to pay, do work, then pay" like everybody else does, or shut up.
---The piracy on this scale and technology are a recent thing.
It's not MY problem their business model is being outdated as we speak. Perhaps when the fat cats are out of business or whatever, smaller guys who're willing to change will take place.
---I know it was the stone age but when I was growing up people saved up for a record album, yes I mean vinyl records. If they couldn't afford it they just listened to the radio. There's nothing in the Constitution about free exchange of copyrighted material, if I record a song you don't own it I do.
The law is on their side. Precedent is on their side, as are much money in the politicians' pockets. But the majority of the people in the US isnt on their side. Because of this, they must change to a position that is supported.
---I know this is a troll post because it's not bashing copyright holders but at the core this is about people wanting to avoid paying for music and movies.
Well, I AM a troll and this doesnt even come close to a troll post. You're spot on WRT copyright law.
---because machine image recognition is an area of tricky tricky research and requires serious computational power. Note that spammers have yet to defeat the wonky text + squiggly lines test for posting on slashdot. And thats just OCR. (While people with very limited intellectual capacity seems to make it through in hoards;)
Spammers dont care about Slashdot, at least on posting here.
We are bombarded with ads in email and web browsing. Last we want is "I work for Intel and we makes teh bestest produkt. Come ask us Q's that we can answer." (oh well, we do have that... but NON paid sponsorships... nevermind). Only greifers and trolls want to cause trouble for slashdot. Well, unless you all think that page widening posts were corporate ads.
Now, how would I beat the captchas? It's easy. Just troll usenet for lots of porno images and serve them up to users. When you need a captcha broke, use a porn surfing user to "beat it" for you.
Human based schemes will always be broken by using humans to break it for you. It just depends if you use a good enough bait to start it with. Next, it will be 2 minute vids for captchas. 2 captchas to 1 vid would be nice, for both spammers and pornsters alike.
Slashdot Mirror
I found that out when I read it.
Still, it's pointless to have people who are "supposed to be tech smart" here posting news sites and aggregators that have 5-10 pages of stuff that 1 page would suffice.
I got done reading this, and it's pretty dumb.
"If you're a big company, you already have a security team. If not, hire one." DOH!
That smacks me of the same kind of response from slashdot about legal advice... "Im being sued by the RIAA, should I ignore it?"
Still, why not gander around and see what the the real security experts and such say about such matters:
The Coroners Toolkit Tools for Unix
Nagios detection suite
Honeypots for 'sticking hackers'
And there's the wonderful tools in the Linux kernel for bridges and such that can be made to monitor data as if there was no computer there at all. Also, PF in FreeBSD can route and filter based on much more criteria than Linux netfilter can (like via OS).
You should have a secure layout of your network along with a respectable sensor network. The Sensornet should be separate from the general network.
If you already work in IT, these things should be obvious, as it is the similar measures required for data recovery on non-hack problems.
You'll use this link. "Print buttons" are your friend, unless you really like 2 pages of content being spread over 10 pages.
Ok. Lets rethink the MMORPG...
1. Level grinding sucks. We had to do it in Final Fantasy 1,2,3 and most of 4. Same with Dragon Warrior/Quest series. It sucks.
2. How do you deal with rapidly differing levels of experience? Many places have higher level only places and those aren't fun as they're only high levelers.
3. How do you manage quests for multiple people? This requires real DM's to do, and not set script spawn monsters.
4. Perhaps we ought to integrate a real-time element rather than "hit, hit, hit, chug pot, hit, hit...ad nauseum". I do like the tales of Phantasia RT element.
5. What about griefing? There's always idiots that do that. How do we deal with them? They are paying customers and these companies need the money... ??
6. Many MMO's prevent user-based content. Perhaps adding possessable units (think second life) will bring responsibility.
7. I want player-killing zones. Make certain areas with high resources heavy with pick pockets and pk'ers. Th
"Human rights are free, until you USE them".
Perhaps, at one time, corporations were made with honorable intentions in mind, but that time has far past for most.
Now, all that matters is the numbers on the SEC filing and how much the big wigs will get (iow: more money).
That, and I wonder if they have to do these lawsuits... They obviously have lawyers working solely for them, and perhaps their amount of work wasnt enough to substantiate their jobs. "Proving their worth" could be a big factor in these suits.
I always thought it as Sauza. Cause you need a lot of it to deal with YAST.
Bugger Suse linux. hated it since their version 5.3
Is it a European or African ostrich?
The more and more I hear about Registrars and ICANT, the more I hate them.
.edu and .gov can handle things rather well. Why not .com? That's right... That commerical aspect.
I wonder what it'd take to develop a new registry for domain names. Just something to get us away from the current set of registrars and their ilk.
Is it not true that a citizen must petition the government for the creation of a corporate entity? It just so happens that this permission is handed out cheaply now.
In past days (pre 1907) this permission was not handed out freely, but in only public works that benefitted the public. After the public work was made and done, the corporation was dissolved.
In what way is a corporation not an extension of the government? Government IS bound by those rules.
And what ruined it was his lack of anger control.
Anybody who wants to play president for 4 years must seem to have a cool head to the public.
No, it added that nice spice needed in that context ;)
I have a real bone to pick with that last paragraph. Lets analyse it.
---In that way, America was founded on an appreciation of human nature very close to the Buddhist and Taoist
WRONG. Absolutely wrong. America was founded so these peoples who lived a ways away from Britan could be their own peoples. They also hated the taxes and severe laws in place for their 'subjects'. The rich peoples rebelled to gain their soverignty. They freed the slaves at that time, right?
That's right. Slaves were not completely freed until about 1880, when the last slaves were granted freedom... until they were corraled back in on work farms with the company store. Slavery all over again. Instead, this time is was the debtors and collections that kept them there, not ownership of humans.
This country has always relied on screwing somebody else over to get to the top. If anything, one who is a "failure" here in the US must be his or her fault because they wernt thrifty enough, or they are just stupid, or they havent done without enough. That thinking is very specifically US centric culture, and isnt in many other cultures.
Ok, Im speaking as a Catholic here...
Christanity has done more to remove and pervert native peoples beliefs and customs than has any other group. Along with that, Christanity has been the sole destroyer of knowledge until the recent times.
There's only about 1600 years of actions to prove this true. (325 AD to present)
What's sad is that Christian belief would tell us to love one another. Is telling them that what they believe is wrong loving?
However, I do agree with what Ghandi said:
"Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."
If the rootkit was signed by the owner of the TPM, it could.
That's why the TPM should be owned by nobody other than the owner of the computer. Anything else would allow tremendous evil.
---The hidden volume is put in the empty space of the outer volume. You can't tell it's there because all volumes are filled with random bits upon creation.
/mnt/steghda/4 and on. What you hide at level 4, 3 and lower cannot see. This is the default capability, and can be separated in that different levels can only see certain levels above them (due to key pairing techniques). Data can still be lost (and is much preferable to data retention) but is mitigated by thoughtful integration of redundancy.
I understand that. I'm not going to challenge if the random # gen is actually random, because that is aside the point.
Instead, if one can watch the sectors and bits changed, one can identify after the "sucker" password is given. A hidden volume can be identified. Also, one would have to be absolutely sure that any parts of the unencrypted system does not contain contextural clues indicating a hidden volume. The work required to prevent the OS from knowing is is drastically greater than just providing a cryptofs or stegofs by itself.
---Since a good encryption algorithm's cyphertext looks random, you can't tell if it's still the random data from the format or a hidden volume. You need the hidden volume's key so you can decrypt it and only then will you know that it even exists. When you mount a volume and it asks for a password, it first tries it with the outer volume, and if that fails it looks for a hidden one. So the mounting procedure is identical, only the passwords differ.
By definition of a hidden setup, one should NEVER know if any password works. The fact this program does let you know if it works or not works indicates that there is known data inside the container. Known data can be successfully cracked much easier than unknown data.
---The "data retention" (they call it protection) requires the hidden volume's key. If an attempt is made to write to an area that's part of the hidden volume, then the write will be denied and the outer volume will be thrown into read only mode.
That is unacceptable. By preventing writes to a range of areas deemed hidden allows mapping of hidden data. In filling up a container with a hidden section, one fills up approaching the boundaries of the hidden one, but never encroaching upon it. In order to prevent hiding, one must allow above all overwriting of data. The loss of data can only be mitigated by creating duplicate sectors around the container (with changing encryption codes locked to your start code + salt).
---It must be remounted to be able to write to it again. If you don't give Truecrypt the hidden volume's key and attempt to write over the hidden volume, it will happily oblige because even Truecrypt doesn't know about the hidden volume. You'll corrupt some data, but at least nobody will know it's there. That's the idea.
But that guarantees data loss at ratings appraching 100%. StegFS has sector duplication techniques to prevent that sort of loss when dealing with security contexts above the level you hid things at. It works by allowing contexts (levels) from 0 to N. If you have security context 4, you have 4 and 3 and 2 and 1 and 0. It appears as
Might I remind you that root CAN read /proc/kcore .
Do you have a system in that which memory is encrypted to prevent superuser attacks (TPM)?
You know, that most state laws put restrictions on the tesla strength a magnet has?
If it has over a certain limit (Mythbusters ran against this limit too), it has to be used only by 'licensed professionals'.
Best bet: create an electromagnet.
Oh well. Ive already taken a mod hit (I dont care). Ill respond to your refutation.
/tmp and /var at most). Of course, TCB on Linux wouldnt be a bad thing, nor would FreeBSD's security levels.
---Incorrect, there is no container file inside the first container, and if you don't enter the password for the second container the same time as the first container you *CAN* overwrite the data in the second container, thus corrupting it.
I am talking about this link in which displays a large container and 2 containers inside of it. The text accompanying it is also sort of misleading. What does worry me is this statement:
"NTFS file system stores various data throughout the entire volume (as opposed to FAT) leaving little room for the hidden volume."
This indicates that the hidden volume is just a free-space volume. This can be attacked by my method: get the 'sucker volume' and swap bits on the files stored to get an idea on how big the hidden is.
---From the website (If only people would RTFM (no, I'm not new here)):
I did read the fucking manual (and website). Free space storage can be 'found out' rather readily. Yes, they do use "advanced encryption techniques" and such, but as they warn, someone who has access to the unmounted volume over many writes can prove there are hidden volumes. This is no good thing in any way. Also there is provided a way to "maintain data security": context levels suggested by Shamir is the way to go, and not the Truecrypt way. Placing multiple sectors along with reed solomon codes would allow rebuilding of partially corrupted hidden files, even if somebody knew the password for a specific context.
Also, how does one prevent Windows from cacheing any of this in places it shouldnt? Does Windows even offer a way to encrypt a swap? Or has one hibernated with this program in memory?
At least with Linux, if Im a user, I know my data is in there, and not leaked through the system (well...
---The hidden volume protection can be activated only by users who supply the correct password (and/or keyfiles) for the hidden volume (each time they mount the outer volume).
I know you didnt say this, but the fact this is a go/nogo is just wrong from a security standpoint.
If the volume is not hidden, it should be easy to verify good/bad password. However, for the application of the hidden volume phrase, it should NEVER acknolodge if you have a good phrase or bad phrase. In addition to that, there shouldnt even be a check for that. The "hidden" phrase should work for all phrases, but only guarantee hidden data security if it is the same phrase.
My ideas are much eviller in terms of data loss, but that is the price of hiding the data in plain sight. Like I said before, check up on StegFS. I use it, and it's very interesting.. It reminds me of a capability system, but filesystem level.
Why do I call this BS? Encryption is legit and can be proved. Thats a good. And it's open source. Thats good.
They claim to have "hidden" containers. That's false if they guarantee data retention. Why?
If you have a container X big, one can have smaller containers inside that. The key opens the outer container, but exposes the inside (to use their language). Even if these hidden volumes dont have publically readable containers, one can still see them and delete them.
How I would attack this stego: I would obtain a sector-logger via ICE or somesuch driver first. Then I would mount the container and proceed to do a "DOD 7 times rewrite" via eraser or somesuch tool. I then would watch what sectors arent affected. Those would be the hidden ones. Essentially I would show hidden places by what isnt touched.
If truecrypt prevents me from writing on "stego"'ed places, we also have a easy find. No more plausible... Instead, we MUST, at all costs, allow any user to write over the hidden portions to demonstrate that it's just entropy: nothing. To do this, we must be readily able to sacrifice data to prevent capture.
StegFS does this, however it only works for 2.2 kernels. Too bad it's not being worked on, as this project, along with loopback crypto had real promise for very secure stations (thinking laptops and such with super-sensitive data).
Im not sure where Murdoch is coming from here.
GNU tools are on one of the CS's that Sun ships, and I install gnu tools anyways. It's there and easy to use. Sun supports its SunOS well.
Unless Murdoch is reffering to the wonderful "usability" of old and haphazardly done Debian packages, well erm.. let Sun take care of themselves. I like relatively new user-based programs (like, not from the early 90's).
Typed on a Debian Testing machine. Debating to go with Ubuntu..
---I have no problem whatsoever with activation. If people do not want to pay MS prices then there are alternative OSes they can use. There is nothing at all wrong with a company trying to ensure that people actually *pay* for its products.
Registering a product (serial number or likewise) is one thing. Things can be made inconvienant for the casual copier. No technology will deter the big guys, not now, not ever. So, any sort of burden you set up will be absorbed by the honest guy. At worst, you'll alert the honest guy on how to use your programs the way the big pirates do.
---This is the first time I've heard of Windows Activation being referred to as DRM. I think your knee just jerked, or perhaps you thought blasting DRM would garner you positive moderation.
Erm, it IS DRM. Or have you been living in a cave when MS brags how they can completely revoke drivers for the 64 bit vista, or how they can deny activation by their many means.
When a computer gets "revoked" after I PAID my cold hard cash with, I WILL still have it work by hook or by crook. If you call or treat me like a thief, I will become one.
---What you *should* get is -1 (Offtopic)
But you should get a -1 (Retarded, didnt think it through).
---Ah, the usual excuse. "There's more of us, so we can steal all we like from the minority, and it's right". The basic premise of bolsheviks and communists. Where would socialism be today, were it not for the people thinking along these lines?
No, it's more along the lines of "Are you going to prosecute everybody? If not, STFU".
And do you think I agree with that line of thinking? Not really.. but nobody can refute the 20+ million unique visitors to thepiratebay.com per day.
I'm just stating that the way content producers can make money in this environment is by escrowing funds until the limit is reached: they get paid for a work published.
---Why is piracy so staunchly defended in the tech community? I know rationalizations like fair use are quoted but the truth is people want free movies and music.
It's simpler than that. The rest of us apply for a job, and then do the work required for money delivered. Muscicans and such do things backwards: they do the job then whine when somebody uses the service already performed without paying for it. Then they want "protections" so they can do things backwards.
Well, reality recently caught up with content makers. Either switch to a "Agree to pay, do work, then pay" like everybody else does, or shut up.
---The piracy on this scale and technology are a recent thing.
It's not MY problem their business model is being outdated as we speak. Perhaps when the fat cats are out of business or whatever, smaller guys who're willing to change will take place.
---I know it was the stone age but when I was growing up people saved up for a record album, yes I mean vinyl records. If they couldn't afford it they just listened to the radio. There's nothing in the Constitution about free exchange of copyrighted material, if I record a song you don't own it I do.
The law is on their side. Precedent is on their side, as are much money in the politicians' pockets. But the majority of the people in the US isnt on their side. Because of this, they must change to a position that is supported.
---I know this is a troll post because it's not bashing copyright holders but at the core this is about people wanting to avoid paying for music and movies.
Well, I AM a troll and this doesnt even come close to a troll post. You're spot on WRT copyright law.
---because machine image recognition is an area of tricky tricky research and requires serious computational power. Note that spammers have yet to defeat the wonky text + squiggly lines test for posting on slashdot. And thats just OCR. (While people with very limited intellectual capacity seems to make it through in hoards ;)
Spammers dont care about Slashdot, at least on posting here.
We are bombarded with ads in email and web browsing. Last we want is "I work for Intel and we makes teh bestest produkt. Come ask us Q's that we can answer." (oh well, we do have that... but NON paid sponsorships... nevermind). Only greifers and trolls want to cause trouble for slashdot. Well, unless you all think that page widening posts were corporate ads.
Now, how would I beat the captchas? It's easy. Just troll usenet for lots of porno images and serve them up to users. When you need a captcha broke, use a porn surfing user to "beat it" for you.
Human based schemes will always be broken by using humans to break it for you. It just depends if you use a good enough bait to start it with. Next, it will be 2 minute vids for captchas. 2 captchas to 1 vid would be nice, for both spammers and pornsters alike.