The article, as usual for news stories, are lacking juicy tech details. Here's some I found:
The article says 102 GB/s transfer. This PDF about the ASC Purple says they have 11,000 SATA & fiber channel disks (amongst other neat stats). So cursory math says that's about 10 MB/s from each disk.
My question is how useful is that transfer? Pulling in at 102 GB/s is fast and all, but if you can't consume it then it's just ego boosting. What kind of useful data transfer can you do on it? Surely it's for parallel processing (ASC = Advanced Simulation & Computing) of some kind so can this parallel app handle 102 GB/s collectively?
My parents just bought a spiffy $3000 62" Samsung 1080i HDTV with 2 HDMI ports (one for sat TV, one for DVD 'n friends) about a month ago. From what I understand and have researched, they will not benefit of HD DVD/Blu-Ray because the TV doesn't support HDCP (no full 1080i for them) since the spec wasn't even finished when they bought it. When I got them to understand that their TV is already obsolete and the dude at Best Buy didn't clue them in on any of this....they got pissed.
So if this HDCP/DRM goes as planned...people will get pissed that their digitally enhanced Bambi 2 on their $40 Blu-Ray disc and $3000 HDTV are no better than the DVD version that plays on any TV...the fecal matter will hit the rotating oscillator.
Their new TV is now a very sore subject to talk about.
The geeks aren't the only ones that can understand this and as time goes on, I believe, the previous and current owners of HDTVs will learn this first hand when their TVs don't work they way they expected it to when they wrote a big fat check for it.
...as one commentator notes, could be the beginning of the end of the globally interoperable Internet.
I'd be happy to read Michael Geist's comments if his server wasn't slashdotted. Based on the article summary (as well all know are always 100% accurate) I have to call this a load of crap.
If both networks are still using IPv4 then there is no end to the global internet, only the global domain system. I know, I know. For most, domain names *are* the internet. But all I have to do is throw my DNS requests at a different DNS server and, bam, I'm on the "other" internet.
Has no one heard of the alternate DNS root system? It appears this is all China is intending on doing: an alternate DNS system (but making it the primary one). Now, how they plan to block all ICANN root servers and all DNS servers that use them.....well, time will tell I guess.
Hardly any reason to yell that the global internet is coming to an end. Maybe the ICANN empire, but that doesn't sadden me in the least bit.
How can anyone be surprised that a tax is being abused, misused, and poorly managed? (If indeed it is, the article was/.'ed so I haven't a clue what it's claiming.) Especially one driven to fruition by a company!
1) Company A claims/lies/stretches-the-truth that X hurts their business. 2) Company A gets a tax passed on X that benefits A. 3) PROFIT! And lots of it.
I would love to hear a reason why company A should be responsible about the tax; make sure all those "hurt" by X benefit (when A can reap it all); and why politicians should care about a nameless consumer lemming when the companies that put money in their campaign funds would be mad if they did care.
And I'm not asking in the happy, perfect little world that we dream existed, but the cold, hard reality of today where politicians are bought, and the rights of the person are trumped by the rights of a company.
Re:JavaScript standards???
on
DOM Scripting
·
· Score: 1
Re: "Just masks them from the user". Exactly. Perfect. Noone cares what your code looks like...
I was referring to the library user (aka the programmer). Not the browser user -- the carelessness is too obvious to bother saying.
Browser + DOM + JS + XMLHttpRequest is a beauty and isn't any less powerful or easy for regular apps than any other method.
Extremely wrong on this one. The fundamental flaw with HTTP is that it's purely client-initiated. AJAX is mitigating the "damages" done by this paradigm. Use any real application framework (SDL, Qt, GTK, etc.) and the key difference is bidirectional communcation and initiation.
For example, doing an instant messager in pure HTML & JS is going to be near impossible. You're guaranteed a lag between pollings (frame/page meta refresh or AJAX) or huge server load to poll every second or less to reduce the lag. With a real application, the data packet comes in, select() wakes up, you process the packet, and display the message. All interrupt driven. You simple cannot do this with a web app.
The more "regular" you get with an application, the more you need bidirectional initiation. If you're talking an app that doesn't require this (e.g., flickr) then you're peachy.
Maybe you should just write the code and go with the flow instead of analyzing it to death. Nothing is perfect.
I'm not claiming JS should be perfect. Analysis leads to debate which leads to resolution. Ignoring a problem does not lead to resolution and nothing is done about it. You're welcome to sit on the sidelines, but that's never been my place so I won't be joining you.
Re:JavaScript standards???
on
DOM Scripting
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That's a good approach and all, but there are conflicts at some of the most basic function calls like getElementById and getElementsByTagName. The two most basic functions to DHTML: getting elements. quirksmode gives IE an "almost" and "incomplete", respectively. Or how about the nodeType property (IE doesn't bother to set them pre 5.5)? How do you propose working around that? By your proposal, you can't declare any of those "safe"...so, back to my original post, how can you erase these differences with a book? You can't.
What the entire current JavaScript situation boils down to is the necessity to make libraries that wrap all these functions. Not just for functions that don't exist or don't work right, but inconsistencies in how they work. How about capturing the text that a user has selected? No browser in existance supports the three methods to get that so you have to roll your own that can do all three.
JavaScript is too diverse and has too many implementations to make your proposal work. A quick rundown:
Getting nodes (getElementById & getElementsByTagName): not safe.
Setting attributes with setAttribute: not safe.
Accessing attributes with attributes[]: not safe.
Adding attributes with createAttribute: not safe.
Getting attributes with getAttribute: not safe.
Adding child nodes with appendChild: not safe.
So that's getting elements and modifying attributes. That's a bulk of what you do in DHTML. Verdict: not safe.
Again, a book cannot erase these differences. The only current solution is to make a giant library that handles all these specific cases, but that doesn't get rid of the differences in the language itself at all -- justs masks them from the user.
JavaScript standards???
on
DOM Scripting
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
...have put off working with JavaScript because of the standards issues, then this book is our notification that those days are behind us.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you immensly on this point.
There were, and still are, drastic differences between browsers in terms of JavaScript and even DOM. A cursory glance at http://www.quirksmode.org/ shows what I'm talking about.
Standardizing javascript now, or in the future, has no bearing on supporting the past and present. Unless you can afford to not support browsers... IE doesn't fully support setAttribute() yet (id, class, for, onClick, etc.). Firefox doesn't support innerText, outerHTML, nor outerText. IE doesn't support cssRules but does rules while Firefox is the exact opposite (opera does neither).
JavaScript has a long ways to go and no book is going to erase these vast differences no matter how well written it is.
It seems the only way we'll get out of the javascript mess is by everyone supporting everything or an entire new language is created with a strict API defined. Then again, HTML & CSS are still up in the air so standards aren't the whole solution.
The one thing I was disappointed about this article is that it doesn't make a "describe $table" call to get the fields for you. You could then extend DBObject to like DBO_customer and the constructor would yank "customer" out of the class name. So then all you really have to do is extend and rename and that's it. No need to directly pass the table name to the constructor.
Secondly, by modifying the load function to accept an array of id's and implementing the Iterator interface, one can use the object in a foreach loop to iterate over each customer (perhaps by implementing DBObject::current() to instantiating a new object and populating it with data for a specific customer thus maintaining objects within the foreach loop). (The trick is to tie the original object into the new one so a data update in the new object is reflected back to the original.) Maybe even add in transaction support on update & delete calls.
Thirdly, if you add in "dirty" and "new" flags to each row stored in the object then you can combine insert, update, & delete calls in a single DBObject::sync() call (again wrapped in a transaction if you wish).
Fourthly, don't forget __unset() and __isset() to remove or check for fields.
Fifthly, store the other columns from the describe call and do validation and/or type conversion automatically.
Finally, __sleep() and __wakeup() would be useful for serializing objects to a session or something. That one's easy though: just serialize() your fields array and unserialize on wakeup.
One more difficult step I have yet to try is supporting joins (perhaps you want to load an object with a customer and all of their orders) which would save the need to use 2+ objects.
True digital-delivery 2.1 stereo through 2 main drivers and an active sub-woofer
I'm fairly up to speed on signal processing and such, but what exactly is "true digital-delivery"? How does it differ from "false digital-delivery" (if there is such a thing)? I can't say that I have *ever* heard this phrase before.
My guess as to what it means is that it's a digital transmission instead of analog transmission (e.g., FM radio). But big freakin whoop!
37 results on google and at least half are for this product. What's it say about you when your marketers confuse people that are in-the-know by making up buzzwords? I know, I know: then they wouldn't be marketers.
But if you break AACS, then HDCP really doesn't matter...
A bit belated in reply: but that's not necessarily so. You're assuming that your CPU (and consequently any program you run) has direct raw access to the disk. AACS is protection between the disc and the decoder and if that pathway is HDCP protected then HDCP does matter.
Or perhaps skip the whole bloody CPU bit and require an HDCP connection between the HD drive and your video card over DMA or something. Then you don't even get a chance at AACS (but it's then pretty moot at that point) and let the GPU do MPEG decoding or something.
I'm not saying this is *the plan* or even feasible, just food for thought. I'd won't necessarily be surprised (in that this is really just a big technological joke) if they let the HD drive and CPU in your computer talk in "plaintext". Then, yes, HDCP is irrelevant and it's just going after AACS.
if theres a security bug, ALL the clients can be fixed in ONE update
Except the browser isn't a remote application. "They" can't even get something like HTML, CSS, or javascript to work the same across browsers, so why should security be any diffferent? Generally: a security hole in your remote app (SQL injection) leads to losing control of that information; a security hole on your browser or server (WMF exploit) can compromise the whole machine.
But, yes, finding a bug in your app avoids having to make millions of individual updates. Definitely a plus. Just saying that that is not the end of the story. Just look how prevalent IE & Outlook exploits were/are/will be -- virus scanning/Windows update will still be needed to some degree.
I'm certain it was a story in itself on/. not too long ago, but I'm too lazy to go find it. Here's there conclusion:
HDCP's linear key exchange is a fundamental weaknesses. We can:
* Eavesdrop on any data
* Clone any device with only their public key
* Avoid any blacklist on devices
* Create new device keyvectors.
* In aggregate, we can usurp the authority completely.
The weaknesses are not easy to repair. Two proposed modifications are broken and still susceptible in O(n^2) work and n sets of keys to:
* Eavesdrop on any data
* Clone any device with only their public key
* Avoid any blacklist on devices
So even if they use copious amounts of keys (a unique one per device), HDCP will fail all the same and their blacklists won't matter.
But this is the video stream, not the data encrypted on the disk (analogous to CSS) so the "per disk" comment you made isn't applicable. HDCP & AACS are two separate issues/battles.
When they have served there sentence they should be able to go on and have a live.
And the injuction was to keep his name quiet? I had no clue about this guy nor his real name...and I wouldn't have if an injuction wasn't brought against WP (and I subsequently read about it). Now that they raised a raucous about it: I know his name.
Congrats Mom & Dad Floricic: you promoted what you were trying to prevent!
In order for a consumer to hold both a protected object and the ability to use it, then they must have the key to unlock the protection...somewhere. So, in addition, companies now have to deal with licensing and compliantcy issues. And DRM sacrificies the rights of the majority at the expense of the minority.
Every leg of DRM is trying to collapse it: except two.
The only supporting legs are a company's desire to "protect" their work and the necessary laws to make circumvention of DRM illegal
And, as we all know, a two-legged table can't stay up for long.
There has never been a functional DRM system, and there never will be, because it is impossible to create one.
I agree with your position but I disagree with your reasoning. The failure of DRM is in that you have to give the consumer both the lock and the key. If you don't give them the key then they can't use it...ever!
Plug the analog hole. Make circumvention illegal. Etc. Etc. All it is is restraining how the user can use the key. There's no way, in this case, to have your cake and eat it too.
This game was lost before it ever started and it's a game that can never be technologically won. Only politics can make it winable, and that only creates a black market and an underground so you never really win.
Once you have a digital copy of something, there's no scarcity on copies; once you have an idea, there's no scarcity on spreading it. DRM is like any IP protection (copyrights, patents, trade marks, service marks): it's an artificial restraint on non-scarce resources.
Though I have no evidence (other than common sense and basic observation) to support my position, I generally find that any extreme is not good (if not just plain hazardous/bad).
Some examples in just the realm of food/health:
Eating 5000 vs. 500 calories
Showering every fifth day vs. every 5 hours
Drinking 1/2 bottle of whiskey (and doing it several times a week)
Not drinking any water
No exercise vs. only excercise (I'm sure there are people that spend 15+ hrs. day working out/exercising)
Zero carbohydrate diet (the diets one can go on and on)
These aren't that hard to come up with and I would classify 5 hrs sleep & 15+ hrs on the computer per day as extreme.
and not the conceptual picture like you linked, but what they've actually got (if that's a conceptual, then that's some damn good CG).
Regardless, fixed wings do not make an airplane. Clearly the fuselage is not a rigid body and the "wings" are more like structs that support the engines and they don't appear to provide any appreciable lift (if any at all).
Again, my point stands: it's not a hybrid (it contracts the two key points that define an airplane: heavier-than-air & wings that produce the bulk of the lift) but a soup'ed up blimp.
They think it could be used in emergency situations, such as Hurricane Katrina, to transport supplies.
Now if we could just get a Beowolf cluster of them then Mother Nature won't stand a chance!
Seriously though, how is this thing a hybrid? It's a blimp with (possibly? Dunno, article is/.'ed) bigger engines to move it faster? How is that a blimp/airplane hybrid?
Courtesy of m-w.com: Blimp = a nonrigid airship Airplane = a powered heavier-than-air aircraft that has fixed wings from which it derives most of its lift
This hybrid is a nonrigid airship that is lighter-than-air and wings that don't produce its lift. So...exactly how's it a hybrid?
NPOV is an official Wikipedia policy which states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views fairly and without bias.
Gee, the sound surprisingly the same.
I think Wikipedia is flawed. It is based on NPOV but there is no such thing.
Maybe next time your argument won't be so flawed if you bothered to search for "NPOV" on wikipedia and see exactly what wikipedia says it thinks NPOV is before you assume what it says and make an ass of yourself?
I guess Wired didn't bother to do any research on a subject before writing on it, why should you?
The submitter of the review on amazon is "John A. Suda" and the submitter here is "jsuda" AND his amazon nickname is "jsuda1". I give it a 99.9999% probability that "John A. Suda" (aka "jsuda1") and "jsuda" are the one and the same. jsuda, here, just apparently decided to wait...almost two months before submitting it here.
Parent got it right on it not being exactly an original review, but at least Joe Bloe didn't (well, 0.0001%) submit John Suda's review.
It comes with the default "straw-" skin but will come with different skins: "blue-", "red-", and "rasp-". Even a novel skin "black-" will make it's debut when RIM goes down in flaming glory after the Strawberry squashes the Blackberry.
...so in November, Amar and I took a visit down to Silicon Valley...
A trip....from Washington...to California...for an icon? I wish I could make trips around the country for such trivial purposes.
How about this instead?
---- From: jane@microsoft.com To: john@mozilla.org Subject: RSS icon
You: RSS icon. We: Need RSS icon.
We coo?
-Jane
---- From: john@mozilla.org To: jane@microsoft.com Subject: Re: RSS icon
Sure.
-John
----
Honestly, 800+ miles to talk about a 28x28 pixel icon. God save their accounting department if they want to collaborate on something like those darnpeskystandards.
So I picked up this month's Scientific American and was reading the their "Scientific American 50" the other day and realized that they had named Hwang the "Research Leader of the Year".
If the allegations about fabricating and faking the data are true, then I'm curious what the editors at SciAm will do? Rename him to "Fraud Leader of the Year"?
Slashdot Mirror
The article, as usual for news stories, are lacking juicy tech details. Here's some I found:
The article says 102 GB/s transfer. This PDF about the ASC Purple says they have 11,000 SATA & fiber channel disks (amongst other neat stats). So cursory math says that's about 10 MB/s from each disk.
My question is how useful is that transfer? Pulling in at 102 GB/s is fast and all, but if you can't consume it then it's just ego boosting. What kind of useful data transfer can you do on it? Surely it's for parallel processing (ASC = Advanced Simulation & Computing) of some kind so can this parallel app handle 102 GB/s collectively?
My parents just bought a spiffy $3000 62" Samsung 1080i HDTV with 2 HDMI ports (one for sat TV, one for DVD 'n friends) about a month ago. From what I understand and have researched, they will not benefit of HD DVD/Blu-Ray because the TV doesn't support HDCP (no full 1080i for them) since the spec wasn't even finished when they bought it. When I got them to understand that their TV is already obsolete and the dude at Best Buy didn't clue them in on any of this....they got pissed.
So if this HDCP/DRM goes as planned...people will get pissed that their digitally enhanced Bambi 2 on their $40 Blu-Ray disc and $3000 HDTV are no better than the DVD version that plays on any TV...the fecal matter will hit the rotating oscillator.
Their new TV is now a very sore subject to talk about.
The geeks aren't the only ones that can understand this and as time goes on, I believe, the previous and current owners of HDTVs will learn this first hand when their TVs don't work they way they expected it to when they wrote a big fat check for it.
...as one commentator notes, could be the beginning of the end of the globally interoperable Internet.
I'd be happy to read Michael Geist's comments if his server wasn't slashdotted. Based on the article summary (as well all know are always 100% accurate) I have to call this a load of crap.
If both networks are still using IPv4 then there is no end to the global internet, only the global domain system. I know, I know. For most, domain names *are* the internet. But all I have to do is throw my DNS requests at a different DNS server and, bam, I'm on the "other" internet.
Has no one heard of the alternate DNS root system? It appears this is all China is intending on doing: an alternate DNS system (but making it the primary one). Now, how they plan to block all ICANN root servers and all DNS servers that use them.....well, time will tell I guess.
Hardly any reason to yell that the global internet is coming to an end. Maybe the ICANN empire, but that doesn't sadden me in the least bit.
How can anyone be surprised that a tax is being abused, misused, and poorly managed? (If indeed it is, the article was /.'ed so I haven't a clue what it's claiming.) Especially one driven to fruition by a company!
1) Company A claims/lies/stretches-the-truth that X hurts their business.
2) Company A gets a tax passed on X that benefits A.
3) PROFIT! And lots of it.
I would love to hear a reason why company A should be responsible about the tax; make sure all those "hurt" by X benefit (when A can reap it all); and why politicians should care about a nameless consumer lemming when the companies that put money in their campaign funds would be mad if they did care.
And I'm not asking in the happy, perfect little world that we dream existed, but the cold, hard reality of today where politicians are bought, and the rights of the person are trumped by the rights of a company.
Re: "Just masks them from the user". Exactly. Perfect. Noone cares what your code looks like...
I was referring to the library user (aka the programmer). Not the browser user -- the carelessness is too obvious to bother saying.
Browser + DOM + JS + XMLHttpRequest is a beauty and isn't any less powerful or easy for regular apps than any other method.
Extremely wrong on this one. The fundamental flaw with HTTP is that it's purely client-initiated. AJAX is mitigating the "damages" done by this paradigm. Use any real application framework (SDL, Qt, GTK, etc.) and the key difference is bidirectional communcation and initiation.
For example, doing an instant messager in pure HTML & JS is going to be near impossible. You're guaranteed a lag between pollings (frame/page meta refresh or AJAX) or huge server load to poll every second or less to reduce the lag. With a real application, the data packet comes in, select() wakes up, you process the packet, and display the message. All interrupt driven. You simple cannot do this with a web app.
The more "regular" you get with an application, the more you need bidirectional initiation. If you're talking an app that doesn't require this (e.g., flickr) then you're peachy.
Maybe you should just write the code and go with the flow instead of analyzing it to death. Nothing is perfect.
I'm not claiming JS should be perfect. Analysis leads to debate which leads to resolution. Ignoring a problem does not lead to resolution and nothing is done about it. You're welcome to sit on the sidelines, but that's never been my place so I won't be joining you.
What the entire current JavaScript situation boils down to is the necessity to make libraries that wrap all these functions. Not just for functions that don't exist or don't work right, but inconsistencies in how they work. How about capturing the text that a user has selected? No browser in existance supports the three methods to get that so you have to roll your own that can do all three.
JavaScript is too diverse and has too many implementations to make your proposal work. A quick rundown:
So that's getting elements and modifying attributes. That's a bulk of what you do in DHTML. Verdict: not safe.
Again, a book cannot erase these differences. The only current solution is to make a giant library that handles all these specific cases, but that doesn't get rid of the differences in the language itself at all -- justs masks them from the user.
...have put off working with JavaScript because of the standards issues, then this book is our notification that those days are behind us.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you immensly on this point.
There were, and still are, drastic differences between browsers in terms of JavaScript and even DOM. A cursory glance at http://www.quirksmode.org/ shows what I'm talking about.
Standardizing javascript now, or in the future, has no bearing on supporting the past and present. Unless you can afford to not support browsers... IE doesn't fully support setAttribute() yet (id, class, for, onClick, etc.). Firefox doesn't support innerText, outerHTML, nor outerText. IE doesn't support cssRules but does rules while Firefox is the exact opposite (opera does neither).
JavaScript has a long ways to go and no book is going to erase these vast differences no matter how well written it is.
It seems the only way we'll get out of the javascript mess is by everyone supporting everything or an entire new language is created with a strict API defined. Then again, HTML & CSS are still up in the air so standards aren't the whole solution.
The one thing I was disappointed about this article is that it doesn't make a "describe $table" call to get the fields for you. You could then extend DBObject to like DBO_customer and the constructor would yank "customer" out of the class name. So then all you really have to do is extend and rename and that's it. No need to directly pass the table name to the constructor.
Secondly, by modifying the load function to accept an array of id's and implementing the Iterator interface, one can use the object in a foreach loop to iterate over each customer (perhaps by implementing DBObject::current() to instantiating a new object and populating it with data for a specific customer thus maintaining objects within the foreach loop). (The trick is to tie the original object into the new one so a data update in the new object is reflected back to the original.) Maybe even add in transaction support on update & delete calls.
Thirdly, if you add in "dirty" and "new" flags to each row stored in the object then you can combine insert, update, & delete calls in a single DBObject::sync() call (again wrapped in a transaction if you wish).
Fourthly, don't forget __unset() and __isset() to remove or check for fields.
Fifthly, store the other columns from the describe call and do validation and/or type conversion automatically.
Finally, __sleep() and __wakeup() would be useful for serializing objects to a session or something. That one's easy though: just serialize() your fields array and unserialize on wakeup.
One more difficult step I have yet to try is supporting joins (perhaps you want to load an object with a customer and all of their orders) which would save the need to use 2+ objects.
From the specs:
True digital-delivery 2.1 stereo through 2 main drivers and an active sub-woofer
I'm fairly up to speed on signal processing and such, but what exactly is "true digital-delivery"? How does it differ from "false digital-delivery" (if there is such a thing)? I can't say that I have *ever* heard this phrase before.
My guess as to what it means is that it's a digital transmission instead of analog transmission (e.g., FM radio). But big freakin whoop!
37 results on google and at least half are for this product. What's it say about you when your marketers confuse people that are in-the-know by making up buzzwords? I know, I know: then they wouldn't be marketers.
But if you break AACS, then HDCP really doesn't matter...
A bit belated in reply: but that's not necessarily so. You're assuming that your CPU (and consequently any program you run) has direct raw access to the disk. AACS is protection between the disc and the decoder and if that pathway is HDCP protected then HDCP does matter.
Or perhaps skip the whole bloody CPU bit and require an HDCP connection between the HD drive and your video card over DMA or something. Then you don't even get a chance at AACS (but it's then pretty moot at that point) and let the GPU do MPEG decoding or something.
I'm not saying this is *the plan* or even feasible, just food for thought. I'd won't necessarily be surprised (in that this is really just a big technological joke) if they let the HD drive and CPU in your computer talk in "plaintext". Then, yes, HDCP is irrelevant and it's just going after AACS.
if theres a security bug,
ALL the clients can be fixed in ONE update
Except the browser isn't a remote application. "They" can't even get something like HTML, CSS, or javascript to work the same across browsers, so why should security be any diffferent? Generally: a security hole in your remote app (SQL injection) leads to losing control of that information; a security hole on your browser or server (WMF exploit) can compromise the whole machine.
But, yes, finding a bug in your app avoids having to make millions of individual updates. Definitely a plus. Just saying that that is not the end of the story. Just look how prevalent IE & Outlook exploits were/are/will be -- virus scanning/Windows update will still be needed to some degree.
You should read this:
p /hdcp111901.htm
/. not too long ago, but I'm too lazy to go find it. Here's there conclusion:
http://apache.dataloss.nl/~fred/www.nunce.org/hdc
I'm certain it was a story in itself on
HDCP's linear key exchange is a fundamental weaknesses. We can:
* Eavesdrop on any data
* Clone any device with only their public key
* Avoid any blacklist on devices
* Create new device keyvectors.
* In aggregate, we can usurp the authority completely.
The weaknesses are not easy to repair. Two proposed modifications are broken and still susceptible in O(n^2) work and n sets of keys to:
* Eavesdrop on any data
* Clone any device with only their public key
* Avoid any blacklist on devices
So even if they use copious amounts of keys (a unique one per device), HDCP will fail all the same and their blacklists won't matter.
But this is the video stream, not the data encrypted on the disk (analogous to CSS) so the "per disk" comment you made isn't applicable. HDCP & AACS are two separate issues/battles.
When they have served there sentence they should be able to go on and have a live.
And the injuction was to keep his name quiet? I had no clue about this guy nor his real name...and I wouldn't have if an injuction wasn't brought against WP (and I subsequently read about it). Now that they raised a raucous about it: I know his name.
Congrats Mom & Dad Floricic: you promoted what you were trying to prevent!
In order for a consumer to hold both a protected object and the ability to use it, then they must have the key to unlock the protection...somewhere. So, in addition, companies now have to deal with licensing and compliantcy issues. And DRM sacrificies the rights of the majority at the expense of the minority.
Every leg of DRM is trying to collapse it: except two.
The only supporting legs are a company's desire to "protect" their work and the necessary laws to make circumvention of DRM illegal
And, as we all know, a two-legged table can't stay up for long.
The company began its U.S. operations in Lebanon in 1977...
...not Lebanon?
How exactly does that work? Wouldn't it have been easier/more useful to start U.S. operations in the U.S.?
There has never been a functional DRM system, and there never will be, because it is impossible to create one.
I agree with your position but I disagree with your reasoning. The failure of DRM is in that you have to give the consumer both the lock and the key. If you don't give them the key then they can't use it...ever!
Plug the analog hole. Make circumvention illegal. Etc. Etc. All it is is restraining how the user can use the key. There's no way, in this case, to have your cake and eat it too.
This game was lost before it ever started and it's a game that can never be technologically won. Only politics can make it winable, and that only creates a black market and an underground so you never really win.
Once you have a digital copy of something, there's no scarcity on copies; once you have an idea, there's no scarcity on spreading it. DRM is like any IP protection (copyrights, patents, trade marks, service marks): it's an artificial restraint on non-scarce resources.
Some examples in just the realm of food/health:
These aren't that hard to come up with and I would classify 5 hrs sleep & 15+ hrs on the computer per day as extreme.
If you follow the article's links...
/.'ed"
Maybe if you read my post you'd have seen I said this:
"Dunno, article is
*sigh*
I would have expected Slashdotters to look at the pictures... It has fixed wings. See. [cantonrep.com]
c ture%203d.jpg
I did...
http://www.ohio-airships.com/Old/Images/Plan%20Pi
and not the conceptual picture like you linked, but what they've actually got (if that's a conceptual, then that's some damn good CG).
Regardless, fixed wings do not make an airplane. Clearly the fuselage is not a rigid body and the "wings" are more like structs that support the engines and they don't appear to provide any appreciable lift (if any at all).
Again, my point stands: it's not a hybrid (it contracts the two key points that define an airplane: heavier-than-air & wings that produce the bulk of the lift) but a soup'ed up blimp.
They think it could be used in emergency situations, such as Hurricane Katrina, to transport supplies.
/.'ed) bigger engines to move it faster? How is that a blimp/airplane hybrid?
Now if we could just get a Beowolf cluster of them then Mother Nature won't stand a chance!
Seriously though, how is this thing a hybrid? It's a blimp with (possibly? Dunno, article is
Courtesy of m-w.com:
Blimp = a nonrigid airship
Airplane = a powered heavier-than-air aircraft that has fixed wings from which it derives most of its lift
This hybrid is a nonrigid airship that is lighter-than-air and wings that don't produce its lift. So...exactly how's it a hybrid?
More like a souped-up blimp. That's all?!?
I'll bite on this one.
You wrote:
In the end, it is much better to have several points of view than one point of view that claims to be netural.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV in the BLOODY leading sentence:
NPOV is an official Wikipedia policy which states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views fairly and without bias.
Gee, the sound surprisingly the same.
I think Wikipedia is flawed. It is based on NPOV but there is no such thing.
Maybe next time your argument won't be so flawed if you bothered to search for "NPOV" on wikipedia and see exactly what wikipedia says it thinks NPOV is before you assume what it says and make an ass of yourself?
I guess Wired didn't bother to do any research on a subject before writing on it, why should you?
The submitter of the review on amazon is "John A. Suda" and the submitter here is "jsuda" AND his amazon nickname is "jsuda1". I give it a 99.9999% probability that "John A. Suda" (aka "jsuda1") and "jsuda" are the one and the same. jsuda, here, just apparently decided to wait...almost two months before submitting it here.
Parent got it right on it not being exactly an original review, but at least Joe Bloe didn't (well, 0.0001%) submit John Suda's review.
It comes with the default "straw-" skin but will come with different skins: "blue-", "red-", and "rasp-". Even a novel skin "black-" will make it's debut when RIM goes down in flaming glory after the Strawberry squashes the Blackberry.
...so in November, Amar and I took a visit down to Silicon Valley...
A trip....from Washington...to California...for an icon? I wish I could make trips around the country for such trivial purposes.
How about this instead?
----
From: jane@microsoft.com
To: john@mozilla.org
Subject: RSS icon
You: RSS icon.
We: Need RSS icon.
We coo?
-Jane
----
From: john@mozilla.org
To: jane@microsoft.com
Subject: Re: RSS icon
Sure.
-John
----
Honestly, 800+ miles to talk about a 28x28 pixel icon. God save their accounting department if they want to collaborate on something like those darn pesky standards.
So I picked up this month's Scientific American and was reading the their "Scientific American 50" the other day and realized that they had named Hwang the "Research Leader of the Year".
If the allegations about fabricating and faking the data are true, then I'm curious what the editors at SciAm will do? Rename him to "Fraud Leader of the Year"?