You might as well say, "I wish slashdot would stop encouraging amateur computer systems engineering. Computers are vast, complicated machines with many non-obvious functions."
An interesting analogy, considering that many people on Slashdot do in fact make such disparaging remarks about anybody who may, for example, dare to program in Visual Basic.
But this is really more akin to a forum for lawyers flaming computer programmers for - I don't know, let's say, actively contributing to copyright infringement by writing p2p programs. Headline: "HACKER CREATES YET ANOTHER PIRATING TOOL." Followed by hundreds of lawyers blaming programmers for the high cost of CD's. Opinions based on ignorance.
I will admit ignorance when it comes to television. All I know about CSI is that it has something to do with criminal cases and it plays hell with our juries. The expectation for forensic evidence in cases like, I kid you not, disorderly conduct, has been directly attributed to the popularity of this show.
We find that evidence of appellant's bookshelf use and the existence of books in his house was at least somewhat relevant to the state's case against him
And so it would be, because it directly corroborates the state's theory of the case! It may not be highly probabative as to guilt - but it is in fact relevant, because it strengthens, however incrementally, the state's interpretation of the facts.
Why should it be? Shouldnt the law be plainly readable and understandable by the majorit of the people?
The answer is because, like it or not, law is a highly technical field. You might as well ask why the field of medicine isn't more plainly understandable by the majority of people. Or particle physics, or topological mathematics.
Now, when it comes to statutory criminal law, I would argue that the vast majority is freely available, plainly readable, and as easy to understand as any technical writing can be. It defines most of its terms and is organized in logical fashions. But this is about evidence trial law, a much more complicated and technical (and often case-law-dominated) subject.
Finally, Schaub testified that, in a file entitled "research," he found the text of Minn. Stat. 617.246, which included "the definition of minor sexual performance, sexual conduct, things of that nature." He also testified that he found an encryption program, PGP, on appellant's computer; PGP "can basically encrypt any file;" and, "other than the National Security Agency," he was not aware of anyone who could break such an encryption. But Schaub also admitted that the PGP program may be included on every Macintosh computer that comes out today, and appellant may have had the text of Minn. Stat. 617.246 in his computer because of prior allegations against him.
This appears to be the only discussion of the encryption issue:
ANALYSIS
I. Relevance
Appellant first argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence of his internet usage and the existence of an encryption program on his computer. Rulings involving the relevancy of evidence are generally left to the sound discretion of the district court. State v. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707, 714 (Minn. 1978). And rulings on relevancy will only be reversed when that discretion has been clearly abused. Johnson v. Washington County, 518 N.W.2d 594, 601 (Minn. 1994). "The party claiming error has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice." State v. Horning, 535 N.W.2d 296, 298 (Minn. 1995).
Appellant argues that his "internet use had nothing to do with the issues in this case;" "there was no evidence that there was anything encrypted on the computer;" and that he "was prejudiced because the court specifically used this evidence in its findings of fact and in reaching its verdict." We are not persuaded by appellant's arguments. The record shows that appellant took a large number of pictures of S.M. with a digital camera, and that he would upload those pictures onto his computer soon after taking them. We find that evidence of appellant's internet use and the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least somewhat relevant to the state's case against him. See Minn. R. Evid. 401.
If this works, it must be by some proprietary Creative flimflammery. I believe some of their speaker sets use a multi-conductor DIN which actually transmits multiple two-channel PCM signals simultaneously. Obviously, this is not "real" multichannel SPDIF and will not work with your average digital receiver.
I have tried everything I can think of to get 5.1 AC3 or DTS over regualr RCA coaxial SPDIF, to no avail. Everything I've found leads me to believe it is impossible.
Take the whole concept to its logical conclusion. Get a bunch of singles. On each bill, write name of the service(s), then use the bill's serial number as the password.
I don't think that will do it. It only says it supports AC3 and DTS pass-through. I'm looking for an audio device that will encode multi-channel sound input in AC3 or DTS. Old nForce2 boards had a technology called "soundstorm" which did just that - but that technology appears to be dead and buried. Without it, it seems impossible to use the SPDIF link for things like multichannel games.
I didn't realize this before going to SPDIF: as far as I know, there are no sound cards and only one chipset that will output more than 2 channels through the digital link. Even if the card supports 5.1 surround by analog jacks, e.g., the SB Audigy, it will not encode your digital signal in anything other than 2-channel PCM; except when you are directly passing it raw AC3 or DTS digital data (say, from a DVD or an AC3 encoded file.) You will not be able to get, for example, surround sound over SPDIF from games that support multi-channel surround sound.
If anybody know of sound cards available for purchase that actually support this, (the feature is called DICE), let me know.
Every track I've ripped from my own CD's is in WMA format, and none of them have any DRM at all.
No, but they have the capability of having any DRM restrictions you want. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what DRM is. DRM itself is a tool, a technology. What specific rights limitations are implemented - if any - are up to the content provider, not the technology manufacturer or the format itself. (In the case of ripping audio CD's, you are the substituting as the content provider.)
That's my only guess as to why WMA's the tried-and-failed format for these clone stores.
No, the reason is that WMA is the only really viable and inexpensive DRM scheme that's available, since Apple refuses to license Fairplay+AAC at any price. Key point: AAC and WMA are not direct substitutes, because AAC by itself has no DRM.
There is nothing at all stopping a competing music store offering MP3 tracks, which would be playable on just about all portable digital music players.
Except, of course, the fact that the RIAA will never, ever, ever, license their music to that music store. This is simple. Music stores need DRM to get licenses. Apple will not license Fairplay DRM. Microsoft will license WMA DRM. End of story.
That's why the "celestial jukebox" model is using is better: because you never have to buy the music. You listen to it without buying. They could change their codec to whatever they want, and you can continue listening to the same music for the same price.
The next GTA game is slated for PS3 exclusive, and they expect to fill the disc.
They expect to fill a 25+ GB Blu-Ray disc? With what, hours and hours of MPEG-2 HD cutscenes? Textures? Half-Life 2, with all of its better-than-HD textures, fit easily on a standard DVD. PC games have barely been released standard on DVD for a year or so, and you seriously think console games are going to need Blu-Ray? Time for a sanity check.
Anyways, if - IF - they needed more than the 8 or so GB available on a dual-layer DVD, you port it to Xbox by including >1 disc, and store some of the game data on the hard drive.
Slashdot Mirror
An interesting analogy, considering that many people on Slashdot do in fact make such disparaging remarks about anybody who may, for example, dare to program in Visual Basic.
But this is really more akin to a forum for lawyers flaming computer programmers for - I don't know, let's say, actively contributing to copyright infringement by writing p2p programs. Headline: "HACKER CREATES YET ANOTHER PIRATING TOOL." Followed by hundreds of lawyers blaming programmers for the high cost of CD's. Opinions based on ignorance.
I will admit ignorance when it comes to television. All I know about CSI is that it has something to do with criminal cases and it plays hell with our juries. The expectation for forensic evidence in cases like, I kid you not, disorderly conduct, has been directly attributed to the popularity of this show.
And so it would be, because it directly corroborates the state's theory of the case! It may not be highly probabative as to guilt - but it is in fact relevant, because it strengthens, however incrementally, the state's interpretation of the facts.
The answer is because, like it or not, law is a highly technical field. You might as well ask why the field of medicine isn't more plainly understandable by the majority of people. Or particle physics, or topological mathematics.
Now, when it comes to statutory criminal law, I would argue that the vast majority is freely available, plainly readable, and as easy to understand as any technical writing can be. It defines most of its terms and is organized in logical fashions. But this is about evidence trial law, a much more complicated and technical (and often case-law-dominated) subject.
This appears to be the only discussion of the encryption issue:
The entire case is available at http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/ 0505/opa040381-0503.htm
You have no idea how ignorant that sounds. Please leave trial law to the lawyers. Watching CSI does not make you a legal expert.
That wasn't the question. The question is whether this is relevant to a jury for the purpose of assessing guilt.
I really wish slashdot would stop encouraging amateur lawyering. The law is a vast, complicated subject, with many non-obvious doctrines.
Super awesome terrific! Thank you!
I have tried everything I can think of to get 5.1 AC3 or DTS over regualr RCA coaxial SPDIF, to no avail. Everything I've found leads me to believe it is impossible.
are you talking about any sound other than during DVD playback? How did you get this to work?
Take the whole concept to its logical conclusion. Get a bunch of singles. On each bill, write name of the service(s), then use the bill's serial number as the password.
I don't think that will do it. It only says it supports AC3 and DTS pass-through. I'm looking for an audio device that will encode multi-channel sound input in AC3 or DTS. Old nForce2 boards had a technology called "soundstorm" which did just that - but that technology appears to be dead and buried. Without it, it seems impossible to use the SPDIF link for things like multichannel games.
If anybody know of sound cards available for purchase that actually support this, (the feature is called DICE), let me know.
Wait, this is slashdot...I thought we were against casual developers, who should leave things to the professionals.
This is what, the 42nd new DVD format this week?
No, but they have the capability of having any DRM restrictions you want. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what DRM is. DRM itself is a tool, a technology. What specific rights limitations are implemented - if any - are up to the content provider, not the technology manufacturer or the format itself. (In the case of ripping audio CD's, you are the substituting as the content provider.)
No, the reason is that WMA is the only really viable and inexpensive DRM scheme that's available, since Apple refuses to license Fairplay+AAC at any price. Key point: AAC and WMA are not direct substitutes, because AAC by itself has no DRM.
Fairplay DRM is proprietary, and, unlike Microsoft with WMA, Apple refuses to license it at any price.
Except, of course, the fact that the RIAA will never, ever, ever, license their music to that music store. This is simple. Music stores need DRM to get licenses. Apple will not license Fairplay DRM. Microsoft will license WMA DRM. End of story.
And that has what to do with WMA? Blame Sony's craptastic software and brain-dead proprietary lossy compression format.
That's why you should never buy DRM files, ever. Lease them, instead; this is the model Yahoo and RTG and NTG are offering.
That's why the "celestial jukebox" model is using is better: because you never have to buy the music. You listen to it without buying. They could change their codec to whatever they want, and you can continue listening to the same music for the same price.
Use WMP10. Make sure you are plugging in your iRiver using the "Media" port, not the "Data" port.
I don't find the WMP10 interface to be substantively differing in features as compared to iTunes.
They expect to fill a 25+ GB Blu-Ray disc? With what, hours and hours of MPEG-2 HD cutscenes? Textures? Half-Life 2, with all of its better-than-HD textures, fit easily on a standard DVD. PC games have barely been released standard on DVD for a year or so, and you seriously think console games are going to need Blu-Ray? Time for a sanity check.
Anyways, if - IF - they needed more than the 8 or so GB available on a dual-layer DVD, you port it to Xbox by including >1 disc, and store some of the game data on the hard drive.