For fucks sake. They don't have to get out more energy than they put in damnit. They are putting in TONS OF GARBAGE. They are liberating a percentage of the energy that went into CREATING THAT GARBAGE. So while they might feed in the equivelant of 1000MW of electricity in garbage and only get back 100MW of usable electricity that they can send over the grid it's STILL an energy "profit" because otherwise the garbage will just slowly liberate its energy as it rots.
A modern, conventional waste-to-energy power plant can easily beat that.
The best of them convert just below 30% (based on lower heating value)of the combustion energy into electrical energy.
The energy yield in a standard inceration facility is about 2MJ/kg of household waste.
Where do you live? Where only rotted vegetables are put in the trash can?
Just now, here in Scandinavia, I usually see lower heating values around 10-11 MJ/kg. Admittedly, that is household waste with some light industrial waste mixed in, but the household fraction is still far above 2 MJ/kg.
(And the most efficient conventional waste-to-energy power plants can turn just below 30% of that energy into electric energy).
So take dioxin's which are a mixture of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Heat this to 6000 Celcius and all the chemical bonds are broken apart, leaving just individual carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Let it cool down to room temperature any you will end up with a mixture of mainly CO2 and H2O, and probably some CO as well depending on how much Oxygen is available during the cooling process.
Actually, the flue gases from waste combustion is known to react into dioxin during the cooling processm. This happens in a narrow temperature band which I don't remember now, but it is somewhere around 3-400 C. So to reduce the production of dioxin, you need to cool the gases quickly through this temperature band.
But that is not the point. The point is that SecuRom on purpose makes illegal filenames to block normal Windows file commands from working on those files.
in run->services.msc, stop and disable the securom service. In the Documents and Settings, in Application Data, delete the SecuROM folder. Delete UAService7.exe from windows\system32. Run "sc delete useraccess7" from the run command on the start menu, or from a command-line prompt. Delete the key [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\SecuROM] from the registry.
I don't suppose that any of this will remove the deliberately invalid filenames in your Windows profile?
Those files prevents a user from copying the contents of his profile to a backup or to a new computer, since the invalid file names makes the Windows copy routine go belly-up.
A lot of the Vista ones are due to having to elevate programs to admin permissions else they don't work. Obvious argument is that it's the program at fault, but if MS had sorted user rights out earlier then said programs would have been programmed with proper permissions.
...and if they don't sort it out now - future programs will not be programmed with proper permissions either.
So the problem is how to force proper permissions on developers. If the developers won't listen, MS can force the developers by annoying users of badly programmed software. But if they annoy those users too much, they will just run with permanently elevated permissions, and then nothing is gained.
but DustyShadow, you forget... you do not have to own a copyright in order to issue a DMCA takedown notice (you only need to own a copyright for it to be a valid DMCA takedown notice).
Should we take a look at the text you replied to:
You have to own a copyright for it to be a valid DMCA takedown notice.
Typical black hat hacking? Like bringing all the servers down, or taking private information for criminal use? Seriously?
Are these actions necessary to consider it black hat hacking?
Most of the people convicted of hacking (or at least those I have heard of) actually did not do those things. They just broke in to prove that they could, looked around in the systems and used them as a base for hacking into more systems.
This can't be said often enough: If you don't like the DRM and want to teach the game company a lesson, you should stay completely away from the game. Don't pirate it.
By pirating a game, you hurt the game company less than by not playing it at all. Pirate players sometimes cause extra sales or adds value to the game in mods or forum contributions. Non-players don't.
By not pirating a game, you will also not give the game company statistical ammunition to add even more DRM to their next release.
So to send a clear message that you don't want DRM: 1. Buy as many DRM-free games as possible. 2. Don't buy any DRM-infected games. 3. Don't pirate any DRM-infected games.
And preferably tell the game companies that you did 1 instead of 2.
The subject of this story says White Hat Hacker. But it seems to me that the break-in was typical black hat hacking. The info to the system administrators may be a typical white hat hacker action, but this does not make the whole thing white hat.
It's easy to find wireless devices... I've personally been doing it since the 1980's.. it's called a fox hunt [wikipedia.org] here in the Chicago area. We used to get 1 minute of transmission every 5... with WiFi you can just ping the dang thing... how easy is that?
No, it is extremely difficult to find wireless devices, especially wireless cameras.
It is so difficult that you would rather try to trace the very weak magnetic field of the antimatter container which is counting down in the picture from the wireless camera.
Sigh, breaking a legally binding contract is breaking the law of the contract because contract are only allowable specifically by contract law Breaking the contract thus brings you the punishment of the contract's "law". The contract is from a technical standpoint a limited law between you and the contract's holder for it's duration.
Sorry, but it seems to me like you are playing with words here.
A contract may be considered law (I am not familiar enough with English to know), but clearly this was not the type of law the GGGP had in mind when he wrote "against the law".
Well actually, it technically is. You are legally bound to the terms of a contract you sign so long as the contract itself does not break any laws. Essentially when you break a contract you are taken to court, the contract is overlooked, and if nothing is wrong with it, the court forces you to fulfill the contract to the best of your ability. Meaning you may have to sell everything you own within reason and then file for bankruptcy, which then triggers another mess, and so forth and so on. Roughly, don't sign a contract that you might consider breaking if you can't afford to do so.
You have just shown us that it can have bad consequences to break a contract.
You have not proved that breaking a contract is against the law.
Yes, GPGNet is rubbish, but you can download patches yourself if you want to, and you don't need to run or even install GPGnet to run SupCom.
When I played SC, the patches available on THQ's website were always several versions behind. If you wanted to download current patches manually, you had to guess the url or search their forum for someone else's url guess.
The forum had some scattered official information of download url's but this information was not updated consistently and was often several versions behind too.
Should of course have been: The GP did NOT demand any help in modifying the game. He demanded a right to do so. Which is exactly what your sculpture example is all about.
If you buy the sculpture, you ARE free to chip bits away from it, because it's your sculpture now. But you have to figure out how to do that by yourself. The original sculptor is under no obligation to teach you to sculpt, or provide you with his hammer and chisel.
Are we reading the same comment?
The GP did demand any help in modifying the game. He demanded a right to do so. Which is exactly what your sculpture example is all about.
The overwhelming evidence shows that copy protection methods do still significantly reduce PC game piracy despite all being crackable to some degree by the most "l33t" crackers.
But does it increase sales?
Game publishers do not earn more money by reducing piracy. They earn more money by increasing sales. What if the copy protection causes more lost sales than it causes extra sales?
Better buyer authentication is good for everyone. VBV isn't perfect but it's better than nothing.
No, VbV is worse than nothing.
VbV uses phishing-alike methods. How can you train card holders to avoid phishing if legitimate web pages uses phishing methods.
Rule #1 to avoid phishing: You should never input any banking credentials on any other web pages than your bank's web page which you intentionally entered.
Rule #2: You did not intentionally enter your bank's web page if it was linked to or presented to you by another web page.
VbV might shift some liability to the customer, but it isn't just some BS the banks made up; it really does increase security if you pick a secure password and don't give it out.
You give the password out at any random merchant who claims that he uses VbV.
In Denmark, if something is charged to your account and its fraudulent or something is amiss with the transaction, the bank is the one carrying the charge, not the customer or company.
Bullshit.
The bank will first pay to the bank customer - but then the bank will claim the money from the company.
I came across this "Verified by Visa" thing out of the blue one day, having had no prior warning from either my card company or the merchant that I should expect it.
Exactly. In the battle against phishing, we are constantly warned about inputting any banking related credentials on bank web pages which we did not intentionally enter, no matter how correct they look.
And now the banks suddenly want us to input banking related credentials on foreign, untrusted web pages with some correctly looking bank content.
Question to banks and credit card companies: How do you train people to withstand fishing attempts when you create phishing-alike web pages yourself?
Slashdot Mirror
A modern, conventional waste-to-energy power plant can easily beat that.
The best of them convert just below 30% (based on lower heating value)of the combustion energy into electrical energy.
Where do you live? Where only rotted vegetables are put in the trash can?
Just now, here in Scandinavia, I usually see lower heating values around 10-11 MJ/kg. Admittedly, that is household waste with some light industrial waste mixed in, but the household fraction is still far above 2 MJ/kg.
(And the most efficient conventional waste-to-energy power plants can turn just below 30% of that energy into electric energy).
Actually, the flue gases from waste combustion is known to react into dioxin during the cooling processm. This happens in a narrow temperature band which I don't remember now, but it is somewhere around 3-400 C. So to reduce the production of dioxin, you need to cool the gases quickly through this temperature band.
I have not tried, but I suppose you can.
But that is not the point. The point is that SecuRom on purpose makes illegal filenames to block normal Windows file commands from working on those files.
I don't suppose that any of this will remove the deliberately invalid filenames in your Windows profile?
Those files prevents a user from copying the contents of his profile to a backup or to a new computer, since the invalid file names makes the Windows copy routine go belly-up.
So the problem is how to force proper permissions on developers. If the developers won't listen, MS can force the developers by annoying users of badly programmed software. But if they annoy those users too much, they will just run with permanently elevated permissions, and then nothing is gained.
Are frogs and deers counted into that number?
Your link says 3201 road deaths.
(Your point is still valid though.)
Should we take a look at the text you replied to:
Are these actions necessary to consider it black hat hacking?
Most of the people convicted of hacking (or at least those I have heard of) actually did not do those things. They just broke in to prove that they could, looked around in the systems and used them as a base for hacking into more systems.
This can't be said often enough:
If you don't like the DRM and want to teach the game company a lesson, you should stay completely away from the game. Don't pirate it.
By pirating a game, you hurt the game company less than by not playing it at all. Pirate players sometimes cause extra sales or adds value to the game in mods or forum contributions. Non-players don't.
By not pirating a game, you will also not give the game company statistical ammunition to add even more DRM to their next release.
So to send a clear message that you don't want DRM:
1. Buy as many DRM-free games as possible.
2. Don't buy any DRM-infected games.
3. Don't pirate any DRM-infected games.
And preferably tell the game companies that you did 1 instead of 2.
The subject of this story says White Hat Hacker. But it seems to me that the break-in was typical black hat hacking. The info to the system administrators may be a typical white hat hacker action, but this does not make the whole thing white hat.
No, it is extremely difficult to find wireless devices, especially wireless cameras.
It is so difficult that you would rather try to trace the very weak magnetic field of the antimatter container which is counting down in the picture from the wireless camera.
(I hate that book.)
Sorry, but it seems to me like you are playing with words here.
A contract may be considered law (I am not familiar enough with English to know), but clearly this was not the type of law the GGGP had in mind when he wrote "against the law".
You have just shown us that it can have bad consequences to break a contract.
You have not proved that breaking a contract is against the law.
When I played SC, the patches available on THQ's website were always several versions behind. If you wanted to download current patches manually, you had to guess the url or search their forum for someone else's url guess.
The forum had some scattered official information of download url's but this information was not updated consistently and was often several versions behind too.
Should of course have been:
The GP did NOT demand any help in modifying the game. He demanded a right to do so. Which is exactly what your sculpture example is all about.
Are we reading the same comment?
The GP did demand any help in modifying the game. He demanded a right to do so. Which is exactly what your sculpture example is all about.
Correct. Sometimes a pirated game means one or more extra sales.
But does it increase sales?
Game publishers do not earn more money by reducing piracy. They earn more money by increasing sales. What if the copy protection causes more lost sales than it causes extra sales?
You can keep on repeating that. It does not make it correct.
No, VbV is worse than nothing.
VbV uses phishing-alike methods. How can you train card holders to avoid phishing if legitimate web pages uses phishing methods.
Rule #1 to avoid phishing:
You should never input any banking credentials on any other web pages than your bank's web page which you intentionally entered.
Rule #2:
You did not intentionally enter your bank's web page if it was linked to or presented to you by another web page.
You give the password out at any random merchant who claims that he uses VbV.
Bullshit.
The bank will first pay to the bank customer - but then the bank will claim the money from the company.
So this WILL hurt the company, also in Denmark.
Exactly. In the battle against phishing, we are constantly warned about inputting any banking related credentials on bank web pages which we did not intentionally enter, no matter how correct they look.
And now the banks suddenly want us to input banking related credentials on foreign, untrusted web pages with some correctly looking bank content.
Question to banks and credit card companies:
How do you train people to withstand fishing attempts when you create phishing-alike web pages yourself?
Should we only buy things from merchants which we trust enough to accept the risk of exposing our VBV credentials to them?
How many merchants do you trust that much?