I cant even begin to imagine how many hours my younger brother and I put into this game on the C64. I was hooked from the start, with the fabulous novella that came in the instruction manual. I pity those that only ever had a pirate version, the box set/manual/novella were a huge help in fuelling the imagination.
I still remember the day though when I came back home and my brother said 'oh I was playing Elite and it said something about 'Do you want to accept this mission' so I said no' He still has imprints of my hands around his neck. I never ever saw a mission appear when I was playing.
Anyone else get through the missions? They still remain one of the greatest mysteries around that game to me.
I was once taking a taxi home after a night out and the taxi driver offered me a couple of Dreamcast games on CDRs. Thats when I knew that piracy had killed the Dreamcast. Sourcing the games was admittedly not for the general public, but once they were on CDr it was relatively easy for any old taxi driver to work out how to use Diskjuggler to copy from drive E to F.
This information alone doesnt indicate how PCI compliant this solution was. To be PCI compliant every box that stores or *transmits* card data is in scope, including any routers/switches/firewalls that data hits. Presumably you also had a source to the card number data, and that sounds like an area of particular difficulty to secure. Any application that allows card data to be captured (even if not stored) should go through PA-DSS (payment application) compliance testing.
Ditto almost exactly. It was when they put Lik-Sang out of business that was the final straw for me. Since then I've avoided all Sony products, and sucessfully convinced a few other family members and close friends to do the same.
Personally I'm hoping to see servers go up in smoke, explosions, minor casualties and with some luck an invasion by a passing Vogon fleet when I ask for The Ultimate Question
No seriously. I've had some real moments of epiphany whilst mulling over problems from the day before. Sometimes its only when you're away from your keyboard that you start looking at the bigger picture rather than the minutiae of individual classes/methods
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=49&pageRank=4&language=EN It cannot, however, override decisions taken by competent authorities within Member States. As the European Parliament is not a judicial authority, it can neither pass judgement on, nor revoke decisions taken by, the Courts of law in Member States. Petitions seeking such courses of action are inadmissible.
I'm definately wanting to get involved though if someone can find a good approach.
I fully agree that taking the servers down would be a futile act, but in no way would losing this case be better for society. If TPB win this case then it could bring about a sea change in how copyright infringement cases are brought to trial. Further it could be the first step in a loong overdue reform of copyright law. At the VERY least it would force the big media distributors to reassess their methods of getting digital content out to consumers.
TPB has had around 25million+ peers connected through its trackers. And thats just one of the tracker sites. Shooting from the hip its easy to guess that at any given time there are 50,000,000 or more people downloading illegal torrents. You cant just expect to take a couple of guys to court to change the behaviour of ~50 million people. The media companies have got themselves into this mess with ridiculous DRM schemes, overpriced media and poor quality products. Its time for a change.
The IWF seems to be targetting non-commercial sites such as Wikipedia and archive.org. If they want to seem honest and unbiased then they should also examine the content on commercial sites.
It has always been called piracy. File sharing is a new term that has come into use with p2p software. File sharing is arguably distinctly different, and you probably dont want to muddy the waters between legal filesharing, and illegal piracy.
I wonder how much of an impact all the UK traffic to Wikipedia being proxied through their servers may have had, and whether that impact played any part in this sudden reversal. Wikipeda was certainly the highest traffic page they've tried to filter to date.
I still find a bitter taste in my mouth over this whole episode. I think I'd rather have seen this come to a conclusion with more judicial overview so that there is a clearer decision on what responsibilties the IWF should control, how the public should be made aware of blocks, and what appeals process exist. As it stands we just have to keep our fingers crossed and hope the IWF dont screw something else up.
I'd also prefer this to come to a larger debate about the merits of censoring images that are clearly not intended to satisfy the cravings of pedophiles. The recent judgement in Australia where some poor guy was fined for cartoon porn shows that we're losing all sense of proportion.
.. I am dismayed by the amount of bad information floating around in the comments above.
There are a good number of comments that seem not to understand how the system works. When the cardholder enrolls he or she chooses a password and a custom message. Next time you're shopping online at any site that supports VBV/SecureCode after entering your card details you are redirected to a page hosted by your acquiring bank. You will firstly recognise your bank logo (not some generic Visa logo), you will also recognise your custom message. These two elements should provide you with some faith that youre now speaking to your acquiring bank.
The password is then submitted and authenticated by the acquiring bank, with no involvement at all from the merchant site - ie, no way for your password to be intercepted. After verification is complete you go back to the merchant site which then (based on the VBV authentication) decides how to proceed.
Once the merchant has implemented VBV/SecureCode (generally both at the same time, as they use a near identical '3d secure' protocol) the merchant is no longer liable for fraud. This is a huge benefit for the merchant, and also shows how much faith the card schemes have in this authentication check.
The only downside that I see from a development perspective is that after implementing it on a site I generally want to check that the site works correctly, which I would do by checking 1) card where the card issuer doesnt support VBV (not all Visa card issuers support it yet) 2) where the cardholder is enrolled and enters details correctly and 3) incorrectly. And most frustratingly test 4) where the cardholder is not enrolled.
I say frustratingly because my personal Visa card was forced into enrollment a few months ago when I was shopping online. More and more of my colleagues are also finding this and it makes testing case 4) increasingly hard!
Overall though I was hugely impressed by the way VBV and SecureCode has been developed. I speak as someone who has worked as a developer in eCommerce and EFT payment systems for a good number of years.
Then I would guess you're not too familiar with the scheme. The authentication page also includes a custom phrase which you set up when enrolling. If you dont see your phrase, you know that the page isnt served by Visa/MasterCard. I think it would be a pretty impressive feat for a black hat site to manage to retrieve your custom phrase as a phishing attack.
Sorry, but the above is not true at all. Merchants that use VBV or SecureCode know that one of the main benefits is that the card scheme accepts liability for fraud. Proof here: http://usa.visa.com/merchants/risk_management/vbv.html
I didnt read the fine article, but I can see how people that spend the time and money to personalise their car tend to protect it more than people (like me) who dont. I think therefore the correlation they drew makes sense, though their reasoning (territorial behaviour) I would disagree with.
Page 14 of the report claims "During the trial three users posted their observation of this effect [browser briefly redirecting to site unknown to user]. In each case the reaction was negative, the user suspecting a virus, malware or spyware of some kind"
If you read the next three pages you see similar comments in the report, strongly suggesting that they were manually inspecting data over the trial period, including users forum posts. Further proof can be found on page 4 of the report: "no BT customer helpdesk calls were received which were directly attributed to a defect of the page system".
Is that legal? For ISPs to monitor what their users are posting to web forums? I hope my ISP doesnt get up to s\*3$%%S&#:: CARRIER BREAK
Ive seen security cameras with motion detectors and speakers. When they detect motion they play back a custom sound file 'Hey you!' or something which instinctively gets the person to look straight at the camera.
A second effect is that they realise they've been caught on tape and generally scram.
My old college had motion sensing lights. It was supremely spooky on the times I had stayed late into the night. Walking down the long (dead straight) corridors, with glass doors from one end to the other and having the lights pop on as you walked along, then off again as you left that section. The claustrophobia was nerve jangling. Ideal for a horror movie.
(Must remember to preview before posting. Please mod parent down)
There is an excellent BBC series called The Real Hustle that details the inner workings of a lot of scams. They've recently been showing the Vegas scams, here's a few links
Slashdot Mirror
I cant even begin to imagine how many hours my younger brother and I put into this game on the C64. I was hooked from the start, with the fabulous novella that came in the instruction manual. I pity those that only ever had a pirate version, the box set/manual/novella were a huge help in fuelling the imagination.
I still remember the day though when I came back home and my brother said 'oh I was playing Elite and it said something about 'Do you want to accept this mission' so I said no'
He still has imprints of my hands around his neck. I never ever saw a mission appear when I was playing.
Anyone else get through the missions? They still remain one of the greatest mysteries around that game to me.
I was once taking a taxi home after a night out and the taxi driver offered me a couple of Dreamcast games on CDRs. Thats when I knew that piracy had killed the Dreamcast. Sourcing the games was admittedly not for the general public, but once they were on CDr it was relatively easy for any old taxi driver to work out how to use Diskjuggler to copy from drive E to F.
In return you can expect a letter from our lawyers for breaking the Non Disclosure Agreement on that Duke Nukem port we're working on.
This information alone doesnt indicate how PCI compliant this solution was. To be PCI compliant every box that stores or *transmits* card data is in scope, including any routers/switches/firewalls that data hits. Presumably you also had a source to the card number data, and that sounds like an area of particular difficulty to secure. Any application that allows card data to be captured (even if not stored) should go through PA-DSS (payment application) compliance testing.
There is a discussion about the vulnerability on StackOverflow
Once you get to the top you just have to bounce into space.
Ditto almost exactly. It was when they put Lik-Sang out of business that was the final straw for me. Since then I've avoided all Sony products, and sucessfully convinced a few other family members and close friends to do the same.
Personally I'm hoping to see servers go up in smoke, explosions, minor casualties and with some luck an invasion by a passing Vogon fleet when I ask for The Ultimate Question
No seriously. I've had some real moments of epiphany whilst mulling over problems from the day before. Sometimes its only when you're away from your keyboard that you start looking at the bigger picture rather than the minutiae of individual classes/methods
Seemed like a great idea, until I read this:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=49&pageRank=4&language=EN
It cannot, however, override decisions taken by competent authorities within Member States. As the European Parliament is not a judicial authority, it can neither pass judgement on, nor revoke decisions taken by, the Courts of law in Member States. Petitions seeking such courses of action are inadmissible.
I'm definately wanting to get involved though if someone can find a good approach.
I fully agree that taking the servers down would be a futile act, but in no way would losing this case be better for society. If TPB win this case then it could bring about a sea change in how copyright infringement cases are brought to trial. Further it could be the first step in a loong overdue reform of copyright law. At the VERY least it would force the big media distributors to reassess their methods of getting digital content out to consumers.
TPB has had around 25million+ peers connected through its trackers. And thats just one of the tracker sites. Shooting from the hip its easy to guess that at any given time there are 50,000,000 or more people downloading illegal torrents. You cant just expect to take a couple of guys to court to change the behaviour of ~50 million people. The media companies have got themselves into this mess with ridiculous DRM schemes, overpriced media and poor quality products. Its time for a change.
It would be interesting to see what happened if a few people complained about this page (warning. Potentially NSFW):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Radiant-Identities-Elizabeth-Beverley/dp/0893816493/ref=pd_sim_b_2_img
The IWF seems to be targetting non-commercial sites such as Wikipedia and archive.org. If they want to seem honest and unbiased then they should also examine the content on commercial sites.
It has always been called piracy. File sharing is a new term that has come into use with p2p software. File sharing is arguably distinctly different, and you probably dont want to muddy the waters between legal filesharing, and illegal piracy.
I wonder how much of an impact all the UK traffic to Wikipedia being proxied through their servers may have had, and whether that impact played any part in this sudden reversal. Wikipeda was certainly the highest traffic page they've tried to filter to date.
I still find a bitter taste in my mouth over this whole episode. I think I'd rather have seen this come to a conclusion with more judicial overview so that there is a clearer decision on what responsibilties the IWF should control, how the public should be made aware of blocks, and what appeals process exist. As it stands we just have to keep our fingers crossed and hope the IWF dont screw something else up.
I'd also prefer this to come to a larger debate about the merits of censoring images that are clearly not intended to satisfy the cravings of pedophiles. The recent judgement in Australia where some poor guy was fined for cartoon porn shows that we're losing all sense of proportion.
> Nice to see not all the mods fire off "troll" just because they're ignorant. Thank you.
You're welcome... :)
.. I am dismayed by the amount of bad information floating around in the comments above.
There are a good number of comments that seem not to understand how the system works. When the cardholder enrolls he or she chooses a password and a custom message. Next time you're shopping online at any site that supports VBV/SecureCode after entering your card details you are redirected to a page hosted by your acquiring bank. You will firstly recognise your bank logo (not some generic Visa logo), you will also recognise your custom message. These two elements should provide you with some faith that youre now speaking to your acquiring bank.
The password is then submitted and authenticated by the acquiring bank, with no involvement at all from the merchant site - ie, no way for your password to be intercepted. After verification is complete you go back to the merchant site which then (based on the VBV authentication) decides how to proceed.
Once the merchant has implemented VBV/SecureCode (generally both at the same time, as they use a near identical '3d secure' protocol) the merchant is no longer liable for fraud. This is a huge benefit for the merchant, and also shows how much faith the card schemes have in this authentication check.
The only downside that I see from a development perspective is that after implementing it on a site I generally want to check that the site works correctly, which I would do by checking 1) card where the card issuer doesnt support VBV (not all Visa card issuers support it yet) 2) where the cardholder is enrolled and enters details correctly and 3) incorrectly. And most frustratingly test 4) where the cardholder is not enrolled.
I say frustratingly because my personal Visa card was forced into enrollment a few months ago when I was shopping online. More and more of my colleagues are also finding this and it makes testing case 4) increasingly hard!
Overall though I was hugely impressed by the way VBV and SecureCode has been developed. I speak as someone who has worked as a developer in eCommerce and EFT payment systems for a good number of years.
Then I would guess you're not too familiar with the scheme. The authentication page also includes a custom phrase which you set up when enrolling. If you dont see your phrase, you know that the page isnt served by Visa/MasterCard. I think it would be a pretty impressive feat for a black hat site to manage to retrieve your custom phrase as a phishing attack.
Try some online demos for an example.
Sorry, but the above is not true at all. Merchants that use VBV or SecureCode know that one of the main benefits is that the card scheme accepts liability for fraud.
Proof here: http://usa.visa.com/merchants/risk_management/vbv.html
I didnt read the fine article, but I can see how people that spend the time and money to personalise their car tend to protect it more than people (like me) who dont. I think therefore the correlation they drew makes sense, though their reasoning (territorial behaviour) I would disagree with.
Page 14 of the report claims "During the trial three users posted their observation of this effect [browser briefly redirecting to site unknown to user]. In each case the reaction was negative, the user suspecting a virus, malware or spyware of some kind"
If you read the next three pages you see similar comments in the report, strongly suggesting that they were manually inspecting data over the trial period, including users forum posts. Further proof can be found on page 4 of the report: "no BT customer helpdesk calls were received which were directly attributed to a defect of the page system".
Is that legal? For ISPs to monitor what their users are posting to web forums? I hope my ISP doesnt get up to s\*3$%%S&#:: CARRIER BREAK
Ive seen security cameras with motion detectors and speakers. When they detect motion they play back a custom sound file 'Hey you!' or something which instinctively gets the person to look straight at the camera.
A second effect is that they realise they've been caught on tape and generally scram.
My old college had motion sensing lights. It was supremely spooky on the times I had stayed late into the night. Walking down the long (dead straight) corridors, with glass doors from one end to the other and having the lights pop on as you walked along, then off again as you left that section. The claustrophobia was nerve jangling. Ideal for a horror movie.
(Must remember to preview before posting. Please mod parent down) There is an excellent BBC series called The Real Hustle that details the inner workings of a lot of scams. They've recently been showing the Vegas scams, here's a few links
Hollowed out chip scam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dDOMyzmkaA
Blackjack scams: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phnkp4R0iJI
Brass balls blackjack scam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu9uAaQs-LQ
There are hundreds more on youtube if you search
There is an excellent BBC series called The Real Hustle that details the inner workings of a lot of scams. They've recently been showing the Vegas scams, here's a few links hollowed out chip scam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dDOMyzmkaA Blackjack scams: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phnkp4R0iJI Brass balls blackjack scam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu9uAaQs-LQ There are hundreds more on youtube if you search