The things they claim seem, to me, to be completely separate from hashing (and, at the same time, are more-or-less impossible no matter what they're doing).
They claim, or at least strongly imply, that their technology can protect a movie from being taped at a theater and then distributed over the internet. Are we to believe that one movie studio (remember, they also claim that BMG specifically benefited from their technology) can use their technology to locate every version of each of their movies being traded, download it, and create fake files to replace those versions? The "virtual algorithm" they'd need to just find all of the pirated works and make sure they're the IP of their client (wouldn't want to help the competition who's not paying for the technology) would be significantly more nontrivial than just cracking all of the prevalent hashes.
Does anyone believe that some company you've never heard of before now has perfected quantum computing, and is using their quantum computers to sell DRM?
My guess: Finland has weak fraud laws, and they're hoping some big media company is being run by morons.
I read the article and everything I could find by following links on their website, and found no reference to how their product supposedly works, or any claim having to do with identical hashes. Did the article submitter just make up the identical hash claim, or is there more information on this product available somewhere else?
What hashing algorithm do they claim to have broken so completely? Sounds like BS to me.
Ah, Slashdot. Where people reply to people who haven't read the article with assumptions based on nothing in particular, but make it clear that the person replying hasn't read the article, either.
So, do you advocate all cars being unable to accelerate beyond 65 miles per hour? Or all guns being able to sense if they're being used in self defense? How about MP3 players that can detect copyrighted music and refuse to play it? The lack of these features sounds like a "serious issue" to me.
You're confusing freeware with public domain. Freeware is software given away at no cost. It may or may not be open source; often it's completely proprietary copyrighted software.
IANAL, but I'm fairly certain that laws dealing with a "physical presence" in a state don't apply to someone who owns a DVD that's in that state. I received a DVD from Amazon that was cracked when it arrived. They sent me a replacement before I actually returned the original, with the understanding that the original DVD was their property and I was responsible for returning it to them. Does this mean they had a presence in my state until the package with their DVD in it crossed the state line?
It's bad enough trying to read badly typed messages from people who can't spell. Trying to decipher their handwriting at the same time would be unbearable.
Some of us prefer to not live in a society where everything that's not forbidden is compulsory and vice versa, and would like people like you to shut the flip up.
The person taking the view that Communism has been discredited by the past 90 years of history would be like someone telling Einstein that it would be insane to reject Newtonian mechanics because they've always worked for all macroscopic, slow-moving experiments and to suggest that things behave differently at higher speeds is absurd.
Certain to whom? I can't think of a system of moral philosophy that would make such a claim, unless it takes it as an axiom. If most political philosophers would disagree with your premises, your agrgument probably isn't as "certain" as you think.
Point me to a capitalist society that "hued" to laissez faire principles for more than a few years instead of devloving into state capitalism and I'll grant your point.
There has never been a country that has tried real communist principles. If someone had suggested to Karl Marx that any of the countries that have called themselves communist could be successful communist countries, he'd have thought that person was an idiot, or at least that they hadn't read anything he'd written. Lenin was always a better revolutionary than a Communist, and he almost certainly knew that Russia, without an industrial economy run by capitalists who were exploiting their workers, was neither ripe for communist revolution nor at all likely to succeed with one. The Russian Revolution was not a communist revolution, it was the taking of an easy opportunity to overthrow a Czarist regime made weak by WWI. It was unfortunate that the Bolsheviks emerged as the rulers after the revolution, because their political philosophy was completely unsuited to the situation Russia was in.
There has never been a case where an industrialized country saw the workers rise up to take power. Yes, this may prove that Marx was wrong that such a revolution is a historical necessity; the metaphysics behind his deterministic view of history are certainly shaky at best. But it doesn't prove that his economics were faulty, or that a real communist society wouldn't succeed. It just proves that the ones using that name to date have been failures.
"Democracy" and "Communism" are not mutually exclusive. Communism is an inherently more Democratic economic system than Capitalism is, and anyone who thinks that Communism is opposed to democratic principles and thus "unAmerican" is making the exact sort of mistake I'm talking about.
American wasn't founded as a capitalist utopia; there's no mention of capitalist principles in the Constitution at all. Democracy, on the other hand, is clearly being subverted if a wealthy minority and not the majority of the Demos is making the decisions.
Any time government provides any service at all to its people, that can be labeled "socialist" or "communist".
Only a freakin' idiot would make the leap to equating this with Soviet State Communism, Stalinism, the murder of millions of people, and hence, evil. Communism isn't inherently evil, any more than most philosophies.
The fact that oppressive dictatorships arose in the last century that called themselves Communist (while doing a lot of unCommunist things, like, I don't know, oppressing the workers a lot worse than the capitalists were doing before them) doesn't make any vaguely socialist proposal the edge of a slippery slope to totalitarianism, and more than the Crusades prove that all Christians love killing Muslims.
Anyone who tries to advance their political ends through misleading labeling should be tarred and feathered.
Publicly offering files with the names of copyrighted works will constitute at least trademark infringement.
You also assume there's some way you could get a large financial settlement against someone because they sent you a cease & desist letter in good faith. That's extremely unlikely.
Your scenario is nothing but fantasy, based on a total misunderstanding of how the world works. I assume you're 12 years old.
Good luck with that. Since the voters in their districts tend to work for the automakers, helping the automakers is unlikely to get them voted out of office. Feel free to move there and campaign on the "I'm going to drive up your employer's costs and get them to outsource your job" ticket.
If you see a fellow gym member distributing illegal copies of copyrighted Shriner publications at your gym and tell their lawyers, the Shriners aren't guilty of trespassing at the gym, either.
Slashdot Mirror
It's unlikely that part of the remedy granted to Apple in a case like this would involve sterilization or death.
Scripts, fine. Try implementing su or sudo without it, and we'll see how much it's needed.
Very few sites invented as much of the technology behind the web as they did.
They claim, or at least strongly imply, that their technology can protect a movie from being taped at a theater and then distributed over the internet. Are we to believe that one movie studio (remember, they also claim that BMG specifically benefited from their technology) can use their technology to locate every version of each of their movies being traded, download it, and create fake files to replace those versions? The "virtual algorithm" they'd need to just find all of the pirated works and make sure they're the IP of their client (wouldn't want to help the competition who's not paying for the technology) would be significantly more nontrivial than just cracking all of the prevalent hashes.
Does anyone believe that some company you've never heard of before now has perfected quantum computing, and is using their quantum computers to sell DRM?
My guess: Finland has weak fraud laws, and they're hoping some big media company is being run by morons.
What hashing algorithm do they claim to have broken so completely? Sounds like BS to me.
It's running OS X.
So, do you advocate all cars being unable to accelerate beyond 65 miles per hour? Or all guns being able to sense if they're being used in self defense? How about MP3 players that can detect copyrighted music and refuse to play it? The lack of these features sounds like a "serious issue" to me.
And the fact that you didn't see the article about it that was here should interest anyone else because...?
You're confusing freeware with public domain. Freeware is software given away at no cost. It may or may not be open source; often it's completely proprietary copyrighted software.
Fine. It's a regular copyrighted work that you have no right to make derivative works from. Sheesh.
IANAL, but I'm fairly certain that laws dealing with a "physical presence" in a state don't apply to someone who owns a DVD that's in that state. I received a DVD from Amazon that was cracked when it arrived. They sent me a replacement before I actually returned the original, with the understanding that the original DVD was their property and I was responsible for returning it to them. Does this mean they had a presence in my state until the package with their DVD in it crossed the state line?
It's bad enough trying to read badly typed messages from people who can't spell. Trying to decipher their handwriting at the same time would be unbearable.
Some of us prefer to not live in a society where everything that's not forbidden is compulsory and vice versa, and would like people like you to shut the flip up.
The person taking the view that Communism has been discredited by the past 90 years of history would be like someone telling Einstein that it would be insane to reject Newtonian mechanics because they've always worked for all macroscopic, slow-moving experiments and to suggest that things behave differently at higher speeds is absurd.
Certain to whom? I can't think of a system of moral philosophy that would make such a claim, unless it takes it as an axiom. If most political philosophers would disagree with your premises, your agrgument probably isn't as "certain" as you think.
There has never been a country that has tried real communist principles. If someone had suggested to Karl Marx that any of the countries that have called themselves communist could be successful communist countries, he'd have thought that person was an idiot, or at least that they hadn't read anything he'd written. Lenin was always a better revolutionary than a Communist, and he almost certainly knew that Russia, without an industrial economy run by capitalists who were exploiting their workers, was neither ripe for communist revolution nor at all likely to succeed with one. The Russian Revolution was not a communist revolution, it was the taking of an easy opportunity to overthrow a Czarist regime made weak by WWI. It was unfortunate that the Bolsheviks emerged as the rulers after the revolution, because their political philosophy was completely unsuited to the situation Russia was in.
There has never been a case where an industrialized country saw the workers rise up to take power. Yes, this may prove that Marx was wrong that such a revolution is a historical necessity; the metaphysics behind his deterministic view of history are certainly shaky at best. But it doesn't prove that his economics were faulty, or that a real communist society wouldn't succeed. It just proves that the ones using that name to date have been failures.
American wasn't founded as a capitalist utopia; there's no mention of capitalist principles in the Constitution at all. Democracy, on the other hand, is clearly being subverted if a wealthy minority and not the majority of the Demos is making the decisions.
Only a freakin' idiot would make the leap to equating this with Soviet State Communism, Stalinism, the murder of millions of people, and hence, evil. Communism isn't inherently evil, any more than most philosophies.
The fact that oppressive dictatorships arose in the last century that called themselves Communist (while doing a lot of unCommunist things, like, I don't know, oppressing the workers a lot worse than the capitalists were doing before them) doesn't make any vaguely socialist proposal the edge of a slippery slope to totalitarianism, and more than the Crusades prove that all Christians love killing Muslims.
Anyone who tries to advance their political ends through misleading labeling should be tarred and feathered.
You also assume there's some way you could get a large financial settlement against someone because they sent you a cease & desist letter in good faith. That's extremely unlikely.
Your scenario is nothing but fantasy, based on a total misunderstanding of how the world works. I assume you're 12 years old.
Their lawyers will crush your case, and your lawyer will take all of your money. Doesn't sound very effective to me.
Well, so much for the theory that Congress always listens to media company lobbyists.
P.S. moderators: it's called "sarcasm".
Good luck with that. Since the voters in their districts tend to work for the automakers, helping the automakers is unlikely to get them voted out of office. Feel free to move there and campaign on the "I'm going to drive up your employer's costs and get them to outsource your job" ticket.
No, it's not a union. Not even a little. It's a trade group.
What a stupid argument.
You're an idiot if you expect them to do so.