But that turing machine can still send and receive bits, even if they are written as something else, they can be reencoded by a simple mechanism. That means that it should be possible to program a turing machine to speak SCSI (although it makes everything more difficult). A TC could also be connected to it, following orders from the TM, too. So, in the end, it can use periphericals.
Anyway, even with only a basic stdin and stdout it would be fine. In order to crack a disk, you probably just need the future equivalent of an iso image, something the TC is probably willing to provide, since it's encrypted (and can be read from the bus if it isn't so willing).
BTW, I didn't mean to say that the turing machine would be the only tool, but one of many. I only mentioned it because something so innocent looking to outsiders (read legislators) can be turned into a cracking machine. Imagine what you could do by combining the tools from the computer science and engineering departments.
The point is that even under such extreme situation, that really complicates teaching, the tools for cracking are available anyway. A possible way of getting rid of the tools would be to teach computer science exclusively on paper, and even then it only takes one bright hacker (in the old sense) to start rebuilding the tools.
Why would universities and research labs need computers without TC? Perhaps a very very few niche activities, but for the general work of a university or lab the TC computer would work just fine and be no hinerance to research. And if the TC computer is the mass-market commodity item and the GPC is the special build then the TC is likely to be cheaper than the GPC despite the extra complexity.
Those "niche activities" would probably be all of the activities of computer science schools. Sure, the guys in accounting can be easily restricted, but the students?
At the very least, those will be TC, but enabled to run any program made by the students, so there you have a place to run craking programs. Even in most extreme situations, even if you only allow the minimum set of educational tools, how long do you think it'll take for a key to get leaked (industry insider or engineering student with electron microscope, CS student loading an embedded device's firmware on an emulator/debugger) and a drm-decoder implemented in the university's universal turing machine?
You see, a GPC MUST EXIST if you are to teach computer science. The turing machine is the most basic there is to teach, and everything a computer can do, a turing machine can, by definition. Given a GPC, you can do anything you want, even if computer security is airtight, the keys will be leaked from an embedded device (firmware running on an emulator on a GPC). The cracking tools are there, and you cannot destroy them if you want to teach computer science and engineering. You might make it harder, so hard that it is a challenge (wouldn't be the first time) but people are going to take shots at that, and one will eventually succeed.
In fact, people will be attracted to it because it would be an interesting challenge. Have you seen how many wacky projects are loose on the Internet? Intercal was made because it was a challenge, just for fun. Computer scientists and computer science students are also hard to deal with. They will leave computers untouched until someone tries to restrict them unreasonably (us really, since IAACS), then crack it until it is useful again. I've seen it happen at the university more than once.
By using TC, you are making it harder to retrieve the keys, in that, you're 100% correct. But once those keys are retrieved, or the protection mechanism is found weak, the media will be cracked on the same machines used to teach computer science.
China will stop making GPCs if there is no significant market for them. There will be no significant market for them if they don't do what the public want. If the public wants to play DRM that needs son-of-Palladium then the GPCs won'd do what the public want.
China will probably make multi mode computers that can behave as GPCs or TCs, in order to get BOTH markets, just as they make multi region dvd players. Making only TCs will mean they will not be able to sell computers to certain buyers interested in GPCs (governments and military, not wanting foreign restrictions in its computers, universities and big corps interested in doing research, other countries not interested in TC and people like myself). Anyone thinking that they might eventually need a GPC would buy those computers instead of the TC only models (except the novice buyers seeking the cheapest one at walmart, they might end with single or multi purpose ones, because they didn't pay attention).
What you're asking for is impossible. It's no coincidence that TFA talks about "magic DRM". That "magic DRM" is what you're talking about.
You're asking both for unlimited format shifting and the ability to give your friend a limited 3-day-only copy. Let's assume you get your dream, and we all get that protected content with those two magical computer programs. So, you would use the first to make your backup copies and the second one to give your friend a chance to listen to something he might find interesting. Great.
Except it only works on honest people. What's preventing me (let's assume I'm crooked) from using the unlimited copier and give the copy to a friend? If you take any measures to prevent me from doing that, it's not unlimited anymore. What if I wanted to backup to CD or some other unprotected medium? It might be a legitimate backup, or I could be making a copy to give away. Short of reading my mind (and I won't allow that, even if possible) there's no way of telling.
In fact, there's no way of knowing whether a copy someone is making is a legal backup or format-shift or not.
Basically your DRM would mean that honest people will not make unlimited copies to give away, but at the same time cannot be effective when operated by a dishonest user. In that case, it only protects the content from a dishonest user that requested a trial song, until someone agrees to give him an unlimited copy. As soon as someone gets a reason to post an unlimited copy to, say, The Pirate Bay, it's game over.
If you're honest and your friends are too, you could just do without DRM and just ask them to delete the copy in 3 days. As many people said before, DRM is there to make honest users honest.
And even if you were honest and your friend is not, he can do many things to unprotect his music. The simplest one being controlling how 'time' elapses in his computer/device. Those 3 days might become years, since a program has no precise notion of external time, it knows what it is told (and clocks can be changed). Sure, there might be a central time authority, but then it would mean he needs net access whenever he wants to play that copy, I think that's something you did not intend.
And then there's the analog hole anyway. If I can see/listen/whatever it I can copy it.
Before you start talking about Helms-Burton and all that nonsense, why don't you analyze the situation? Windows (and PCs) are sold over the counter to anyone with cash. Let's say the cuban government wants a new PC preloaded with vista (yes, they're masochists). The only thing they need to do, assuming they need it badly enough, is to send someone from one of their embassies to buy one in a computer store.
How would the US stop that? The local government probably doesn't care, although there might be some pressure. Microsoft doesn't know. The local retailers don't care, and even if they did there's no way for them to know who they are dealing with. The US agencies probably care, but they cannot do anything at all (The reaction to an US agent going to a local store and saying "Don't sell a computer to this man, he's from the cuban government and we have the Helms-Burton act that prohibits all sales" is probably best described as "hahahaha!").
Maybe tracking one computer is hard enough, but what about 50? They still won't have to tell anyone who they are, they can pick them themselves on site and they would probably get a discount for making a large purchase. It's a free market after all. Even considering there would be a problem selling computers to the local cuban embassy, which I doubt.
And that's assuming a typical latin american country, let alone if they do it in russia, or in a pirate haven like malaysia or thailand.
Face it. The only obtacle that prevents an entity from getting windows is they want to is lack of dollars, and there's The Pirate Bay for those cases too.
ABLE ARCHER 83 was a war game in europe. Due to certain reasons, the soviets though it could be a cover to start an invasion on eastern europe. The analysts realized just in time that the soviets felt really nervous and scaled down the war game.
What the GP poster was talking about was world war 3, not the flu.
There's somthing very stupid with the concept of a sign language chat via cell phone. People are limited by the capabilities of a phone, and at the same time, given the capability, people will use it as they please. That means that no such 'sign language phone' exists (or will ever exist).
Either a phone has video transmitting capabilities, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then there's no hope of having a sign language chat (unless we use CGI to simulate it, which would be fancy texting). If it does, then optimizing th video codec for sign language would seem a good idea....... until someone uses that phone to transmit a video of machinery in action, or a landscape, or anything not related to sign language.
Basically a video phone is a video phone, people will use it for whatever they want to. If might make sense to make a 'sign language mode' that activates a special codec, but I think it'll only confuse things.
Oh, and as lots of/.ers have said, those images in TFA look fake, you'll never get those from a real cellphone in the user's hands.
I've had problems with antivirus at work, but not with false positives. The problems the AV gave me were correctly identifying hacking tools as such, and then treating them as viruses (erasing them).
The situation would be pretty awful in normal circumstances, and in my case (network administrator) it would be so intolerable that the RTAV would have to be disabled (at least for me).
I wouldn't be suprised that wiseshark (AKA ethereal) would fall in that category, although it never happened with ethereal (in my case, it happened with brutus).
And I'm talking from experience here. 10 years ago Buenos Aires was in the same situation as described in TFA, and the pirated software sold in stores was mostly clean. I know there was no market for zombie machines, but there were lots of (very good) viruses around. Selling infected software would hurt sales REALLY BAD. Especially since it would only take a seasoned pirate, hacker or technician to notice (and the latest antivirus was also available from most local pirates).
Most pirated software salesmen are interested in selling software, so they won't do anything to threaten their own income. The only thing some pirate shops would do is to add some intro/advertisement (and they were treated like scum for that). Most viruses came from diskettes from unknown sources.
The point in the GP post is that you don't own the Internet. Let's assume that your point is 100% valid, and you 'own' your ISP's network. You the use tor and your packets go through your ISP's network to the nearest point of presence (a big room where all ISPs meet), do you own it too? Then your packets go thru an international link to a national network of another country. Do you own that too? Same when the packets enter the onion router, the routers are not yours, neither the networks they are on. Same about the exit point.
By definition, you use tor on someone else's network. That's precisely the idea: if you remained in your own network, with your own servers, using tor would make no sense.
Surely all it would take is for DRM media not to be playable on general purpose computers?
And how would you do that? They don't call them GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTERS for nothing. Emulating another device is definitely within the powers of a GPC.
If the USA mandated Treacherous Computing or the major suppliers of software and content started to insist on it then I reckon the general purpose computer would be dead within a few of years outside of museums and hobbyists bedrooms.
That would include places like universities and research labs. So, we have two scenarios:
1. General purpose computers really disappear from all these research institutions and the US takes a big research penalty. China, Europe, Japan and everyone else close the technology gap on the US (if any), go beyond and suddenly nobody cares anymore about the US (and therefore hollywood).
2. There are exceptions made, and these places get the real stuff. Piracy still happens a lot, centered on univesities and other high budget, low security, free places, just like 25 years ago.
Unless the US manages to make lots of other countries use TC, that move is as good as a poison pill. China is not going to stop making GPCs just because the US says so, if others are willing to buy them. Even if they do make TCs for the US market, I doubt they will put much effort in making them tamper proof, unless they pay them for it (meaning that a TC will be more expensive than a GPC).
Even nukes can't stop it! Or at least they shouldn't, since the internet was originally designed to run as a communications network in the event of a nuclear attack.
No, it wasn't. If the Internet is/was capable of working after being nuked, it was just a consequence of packet switching, a coincidence. The Internet's main advantage would be fast information sharing, by design.
The network that was supposed to be nuke-resistant was a project proposed by Paul Baran in the early sixties, while he was working at RAND Corporation. That network never came to life, but in the late sixties, his idea of packet switching (discovered independently also by Kleinrock and Davies) were used on the ARPANET, that eventually became the Internet.
So, Internet MIGHT keep working if nuked, but that's not by design.
I've been checking some of the docs in the specs part, and there are documents describing netbios dated 1987 (rfc 1001, no less!). There definitely is a lot of SMB documentation, but not about the MS extensions.
IIRC SMB was an IBM invention. Then MS embraced and extended it.
The SMB draft was made by microsoft in 1997. That would be 4 years before samba 1.0, so it must have helped a lot. They acknowledge that the ietf draft was really useful on the "french cafe" document.
And samba was not really all it could be until 3.0 (at least for me, although 2.x was useful enough).
First, I might be the owner of an aircraft/cruise ship (long shot about ships, but people I know own aircraft, and airlines and cruise lines certainly have owners).
But that's not what I'm pointing at. What I mean is that actually someone made the effort to put an "if" statement somewhere in the firmware when they could just dropped all checks, making it simpler and more reliable.
Why would anyone making what esentially is a region free dvd player bother to check those two regions anyway? Even if the checks were still there and it was a bitmap that was changed, what would be the point? Do they really check it, or they say "1 to 6" to avoid confusing people?
Has anyone pressed a R7 or R8 dvd and tried? (I'm not rich, so I just can't do it, but I'm getting curious about it)
Here (Argentina) all players come as "region 1-6" directly from china, taiwan, malaysia, etc. It even says so in the manual. And I'm talking about major brands here. Market forces take care of those who do not respect this rule.
What I've never understood is why the bother to block other regions (looks like there are regions 7 and 8 for special purposes). Then again, maybe they don't, I don't have a R7 or R8 dvd to test that.
So you could buy a track for about $US 0.85 if the Americans were allowed to buy tracks in Canada
So what? In fact, that is great, Americans get to save 15 cents.
Isn't this what globalization is all about? If corporations can buy goods and labour in the countries that are more beneficial to them, why should I not be able to buy entertainment products where they are cheaper?
Oh, yes. Now it hurts THEM. Gee, too bad. They should be thankful that I can't teleport.
This should explain the concept that we're talking about.
The basic idea is that, if you want to change the altitude of an orbiting object at a certain point, you need to give it a push ON THE OTHER SIDE of the planet the object is orbiting (you want a lower altitude over china, you need to decrease speed over america).
If you change the velocity the bullet exits the muzzle of the cannon (or the railgun or whatever), you are making the bullet go higher/lower at the other side, and then hitting the cannon faster/slower when it returns. That is, unless it reaches escape velocity (it'll never return) or hits the planet. To circularize the orbit (basically to make the bullet go higher over the cannon), you need to give it a push when it's on the other side of the planet, that's what the rocket is for.
Make it so you can play it on your machines all the time, but require some sort of identification to play it on someone elses machine that expires once it's played on one of your machines again?
And how are you supposed to provide such identification in a way that cannot be subverted by the user? ID number -> easily replayed by the user Biometrics -> Bitstring that can be replayed by the user ID card -> fake "card" reader that replays the data
Same goes with the key that is generated from the data above.
Assuming that phase is unbreakable, how are you going to verify that "it has expired because the file was played on one of the original user's machine"? Don't think of a pc, think of a standalone mp3 player that has no connections to anything else (you connected to a host to upload the file, and you don't connect anymore).
And if it's allowed to play on all my machines, that does include my linux machine? How would you think libdrm.so would fare, considering I demand to see its source? What prevents me from capturing the audio while it's being piped to/dev/dsp0? If it's made so it doesn't inconvenience the user in some way, then the user could easily capture it in lots of places not related to the drm module.
DRM is a theoretically impossible idea, the phrase "If I can watch it, I can copy it" is probably the greatest truth about drm ever said.
Nah, it's his own code, since we know humans are still in 1.0 (at least some people are saying that). He never passed software engineering because he could never design anything properly (he's not too intelligent, you see).
Those people that keep saying "Nuke North Korea" or "Nuke Iran" aren't ignorant of the effects of a nuclear explosion (even if they don't know about most issues, they sure know it's a hell of a big explosion). They keep saying that because they live safely in the US, and they know North Korean or Iranian nukes can't reach them.
They would change their tune as soon as nuking NK/IR meant the US gets nuked in return (because a nuke might land in their backyard, not that the assholes care about a far away city).
I think the general issue here is we have a clash of epistemologies. Science says "X", and the fundamentalist in the original post claims that the Bible says, "not X".
The problem is that being written in the bible does not count as evidence when discussing science. So, whether the bible says "X" or "not X" is irrelevant.
That leaves us with: Science says "X" and the fundamentalist in the original post says "not X" without any evidence to support it. Considering all the evidence pointing to "X", I'd say we should believe "X" (at least for now), until someone comes with evidence supporting "not X".
That's what the scientist have been doing, everything seems to point to global warming. Phrases starting with "The bible proves...." should be immediately ignored in science (unless we're talking about physical properties of the book, etc).
First, let get straight that sealand is really not an sovereign nation, since nobody recognizes it and the fact that the royal navy does not take it back is more related to cats playing with food than two powers at war.
There is one possible use of sealand, provided that the UK has no problem with TPB: sealand is a perfect excuse to say "Sorry, but it is not in our jurisdiction".
Should the british government want a place to offload all that RIAA/piracy problem, sealand would be an EXCELLENT place: "independent", "sovereign", and surrounded by UK waters, so a MPAA/RIAA diesel sub or old soviet bomber would be messing with UK sovereignty, yet at hand, so that it can easily be invaded or sunk should there be anyther activity not sanctioned by the UK government (drug smuggling, money laundering, etc).
Basically, TPB on sealand will exist as soon as (as as long as) the UK government wants (or is bribed) to have a really big BT tracker at hand. They should negotiate with the british, then.
If I were a vendor, and I could say "Hey, I planted these devices on US personnel and was able to track them all over Toronto without raising suspicion (until much later)."
Reality check.
If you were a vendor that made such coins as a proof of concept, would you admit distributing COUNTERFEIT MONEY?
I guess we won't know what is this all about unless it was an error or some sort of government test.
Slashdot Mirror
But that turing machine can still send and receive bits, even if they are written as something else, they can be reencoded by a simple mechanism. That means that it should be possible to program a turing machine to speak SCSI (although it makes everything more difficult). A TC could also be connected to it, following orders from the TM, too. So, in the end, it can use periphericals.
Anyway, even with only a basic stdin and stdout it would be fine. In order to crack a disk, you probably just need the future equivalent of an iso image, something the TC is probably willing to provide, since it's encrypted (and can be read from the bus if it isn't so willing).
BTW, I didn't mean to say that the turing machine would be the only tool, but one of many. I only mentioned it because something so innocent looking to outsiders (read legislators) can be turned into a cracking machine. Imagine what you could do by combining the tools from the computer science and engineering departments.
The point is that even under such extreme situation, that really complicates teaching, the tools for cracking are available anyway. A possible way of getting rid of the tools would be to teach computer science exclusively on paper, and even then it only takes one bright hacker (in the old sense) to start rebuilding the tools.
Or so you say, I wouldn't want to be the poor bloke that has to fix everything because you didn't research things thoroughly and your solution is just an stopgap measure.
Those "niche activities" would probably be all of the activities of computer science schools. Sure, the guys in accounting can be easily restricted, but the students?
At the very least, those will be TC, but enabled to run any program made by the students, so there you have a place to run craking programs. Even in most extreme situations, even if you only allow the minimum set of educational tools, how long do you think it'll take for a key to get leaked (industry insider or engineering student with electron microscope, CS student loading an embedded device's firmware on an emulator/debugger) and a drm-decoder implemented in the university's universal turing machine?
You see, a GPC MUST EXIST if you are to teach computer science. The turing machine is the most basic there is to teach, and everything a computer can do, a turing machine can, by definition. Given a GPC, you can do anything you want, even if computer security is airtight, the keys will be leaked from an embedded device (firmware running on an emulator on a GPC). The cracking tools are there, and you cannot destroy them if you want to teach computer science and engineering. You might make it harder, so hard that it is a challenge (wouldn't be the first time) but people are going to take shots at that, and one will eventually succeed.
In fact, people will be attracted to it because it would be an interesting challenge. Have you seen how many wacky projects are loose on the Internet? Intercal was made because it was a challenge, just for fun. Computer scientists and computer science students are also hard to deal with. They will leave computers untouched until someone tries to restrict them unreasonably (us really, since IAACS), then crack it until it is useful again. I've seen it happen at the university more than once.
By using TC, you are making it harder to retrieve the keys, in that, you're 100% correct. But once those keys are retrieved, or the protection mechanism is found weak, the media will be cracked on the same machines used to teach computer science.
China will probably make multi mode computers that can behave as GPCs or TCs, in order to get BOTH markets, just as they make multi region dvd players. Making only TCs will mean they will not be able to sell computers to certain buyers interested in GPCs (governments and military, not wanting foreign restrictions in its computers, universities and big corps interested in doing research, other countries not interested in TC and people like myself). Anyone thinking that they might eventually need a GPC would buy those computers instead of the TC only models (except the novice buyers seeking the cheapest one at walmart, they might end with single or multi purpose ones, because they didn't pay attention).
What you're asking for is impossible. It's no coincidence that TFA talks about "magic DRM". That "magic DRM" is what you're talking about.
You're asking both for unlimited format shifting and the ability to give your friend a limited 3-day-only copy. Let's assume you get your dream, and we all get that protected content with those two magical computer programs. So, you would use the first to make your backup copies and the second one to give your friend a chance to listen to something he might find interesting. Great.
Except it only works on honest people. What's preventing me (let's assume I'm crooked) from using the unlimited copier and give the copy to a friend? If you take any measures to prevent me from doing that, it's not unlimited anymore. What if I wanted to backup to CD or some other unprotected medium? It might be a legitimate backup, or I could be making a copy to give away. Short of reading my mind (and I won't allow that, even if possible) there's no way of telling.
In fact, there's no way of knowing whether a copy someone is making is a legal backup or format-shift or not.
Basically your DRM would mean that honest people will not make unlimited copies to give away, but at the same time cannot be effective when operated by a dishonest user. In that case, it only protects the content from a dishonest user that requested a trial song, until someone agrees to give him an unlimited copy. As soon as someone gets a reason to post an unlimited copy to, say, The Pirate Bay, it's game over.
If you're honest and your friends are too, you could just do without DRM and just ask them to delete the copy in 3 days. As many people said before, DRM is there to make honest users honest.
And even if you were honest and your friend is not, he can do many things to unprotect his music. The simplest one being controlling how 'time' elapses in his computer/device. Those 3 days might become years, since a program has no precise notion of external time, it knows what it is told (and clocks can be changed). Sure, there might be a central time authority, but then it would mean he needs net access whenever he wants to play that copy, I think that's something you did not intend.
And then there's the analog hole anyway. If I can see/listen/whatever it I can copy it.
I've got a probable answer for you:
They get it from other countries.
Before you start talking about Helms-Burton and all that nonsense, why don't you analyze the situation? Windows (and PCs) are sold over the counter to anyone with cash. Let's say the cuban government wants a new PC preloaded with vista (yes, they're masochists). The only thing they need to do, assuming they need it badly enough, is to send someone from one of their embassies to buy one in a computer store.
How would the US stop that?
The local government probably doesn't care, although there might be some pressure. Microsoft doesn't know. The local retailers don't care, and even if they did there's no way for them to know who they are dealing with. The US agencies probably care, but they cannot do anything at all (The reaction to an US agent going to a local store and saying "Don't sell a computer to this man, he's from the cuban government and we have the Helms-Burton act that prohibits all sales" is probably best described as "hahahaha!").
Maybe tracking one computer is hard enough, but what about 50?
They still won't have to tell anyone who they are, they can pick them themselves on site and they would probably get a discount for making a large purchase. It's a free market after all. Even considering there would be a problem selling computers to the local cuban embassy, which I doubt.
And that's assuming a typical latin american country, let alone if they do it in russia, or in a pirate haven like malaysia or thailand.
Face it. The only obtacle that prevents an entity from getting windows is they want to is lack of dollars, and there's The Pirate Bay for those cases too.
ABLE ARCHER 83 was a war game in europe. Due to certain reasons, the soviets though it could be a cover to start an invasion on eastern europe. The analysts realized just in time that the soviets felt really nervous and scaled down the war game.
What the GP poster was talking about was world war 3, not the flu.
There's somthing very stupid with the concept of a sign language chat via cell phone. People are limited by the capabilities of a phone, and at the same time, given the capability, people will use it as they please. That means that no such 'sign language phone' exists (or will ever exist).
/.ers have said, those images in TFA look fake, you'll never get those from a real cellphone in the user's hands.
Either a phone has video transmitting capabilities, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then there's no hope of having a sign language chat (unless we use CGI to simulate it, which would be fancy texting). If it does, then optimizing th video codec for sign language would seem a good idea....... until someone uses that phone to transmit a video of machinery in action, or a landscape, or anything not related to sign language.
Basically a video phone is a video phone, people will use it for whatever they want to. If might make sense to make a 'sign language mode' that activates a special codec, but I think it'll only confuse things.
Oh, and as lots of
I've had problems with antivirus at work, but not with false positives. The problems the AV gave me were correctly identifying hacking tools as such, and then treating them as viruses (erasing them).
The situation would be pretty awful in normal circumstances, and in my case (network administrator) it would be so intolerable that the RTAV would have to be disabled (at least for me).
I wouldn't be suprised that wiseshark (AKA ethereal) would fall in that category, although it never happened with ethereal (in my case, it happened with brutus).
And I'm talking from experience here.
10 years ago Buenos Aires was in the same situation as described in TFA, and the pirated software sold in stores was mostly clean. I know there was no market for zombie machines, but there were lots of (very good) viruses around. Selling infected software would hurt sales REALLY BAD. Especially since it would only take a seasoned pirate, hacker or technician to notice (and the latest antivirus was also available from most local pirates).
Most pirated software salesmen are interested in selling software, so they won't do anything to threaten their own income. The only thing some pirate shops would do is to add some intro/advertisement (and they were treated like scum for that). Most viruses came from diskettes from unknown sources.
You didn't get it right, Mr Coward.
The point in the GP post is that you don't own the Internet.
Let's assume that your point is 100% valid, and you 'own' your ISP's network.
You the use tor and your packets go through your ISP's network to the nearest point of presence (a big room where all ISPs meet), do you own it too?
Then your packets go thru an international link to a national network of another country. Do you own that too? Same when the packets enter the onion router, the routers are not yours, neither the networks they are on. Same about the exit point.
By definition, you use tor on someone else's network. That's precisely the idea: if you remained in your own network, with your own servers, using tor would make no sense.
And how would you do that? They don't call them GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTERS for nothing. Emulating another device is definitely within the powers of a GPC.
That would include places like universities and research labs. So, we have two scenarios:
1. General purpose computers really disappear from all these research institutions and the US takes a big research penalty. China, Europe, Japan and everyone else close the technology gap on the US (if any), go beyond and suddenly nobody cares anymore about the US (and therefore hollywood).
2. There are exceptions made, and these places get the real stuff. Piracy still happens a lot, centered on univesities and other high budget, low security, free places, just like 25 years ago.
Unless the US manages to make lots of other countries use TC, that move is as good as a poison pill. China is not going to stop making GPCs just because the US says so, if others are willing to buy them. Even if they do make TCs for the US market, I doubt they will put much effort in making them tamper proof, unless they pay them for it (meaning that a TC will be more expensive than a GPC).
The network that was supposed to be nuke-resistant was a project proposed by Paul Baran in the early sixties, while he was working at RAND Corporation. That network never came to life, but in the late sixties, his idea of packet switching (discovered independently also by Kleinrock and Davies) were used on the ARPANET, that eventually became the Internet.
So, Internet MIGHT keep working if nuked, but that's not by design.
I've been checking some of the docs in the specs part, and there are documents describing netbios dated 1987 (rfc 1001, no less!). There definitely is a lot of SMB documentation, but not about the MS extensions.
That's embrace and extend for you!
IIRC SMB was an IBM invention. Then MS embraced and extended it.
The SMB draft was made by microsoft in 1997. That would be 4 years before samba 1.0, so it must have helped a lot. They acknowledge that the ietf draft was really useful on the "french cafe" document.
And samba was not really all it could be until 3.0 (at least for me, although 2.x was useful enough).
Firmware can be upgraded too.
First, I might be the owner of an aircraft/cruise ship (long shot about ships, but people I know own aircraft, and airlines and cruise lines certainly have owners).
But that's not what I'm pointing at. What I mean is that actually someone made the effort to put an "if" statement somewhere in the firmware when they could just dropped all checks, making it simpler and more reliable.
Why would anyone making what esentially is a region free dvd player bother to check those two regions anyway? Even if the checks were still there and it was a bitmap that was changed, what would be the point? Do they really check it, or they say "1 to 6" to avoid confusing people?
Has anyone pressed a R7 or R8 dvd and tried?
(I'm not rich, so I just can't do it, but I'm getting curious about it)
What a complicated way of doing things!
Here (Argentina) all players come as "region 1-6" directly from china, taiwan, malaysia, etc. It even says so in the manual. And I'm talking about major brands here. Market forces take care of those who do not respect this rule.
What I've never understood is why the bother to block other regions (looks like there are regions 7 and 8 for special purposes). Then again, maybe they don't, I don't have a R7 or R8 dvd to test that.
So what?
In fact, that is great, Americans get to save 15 cents.
Isn't this what globalization is all about? If corporations can buy goods and labour in the countries that are more beneficial to them, why should I not be able to buy entertainment products where they are cheaper?
Oh, yes. Now it hurts THEM. Gee, too bad. They should be thankful that I can't teleport.
(not that I buy music online anyway)
This should explain the concept that we're talking about.
The basic idea is that, if you want to change the altitude of an orbiting object at a certain point, you need to give it a push ON THE OTHER SIDE of the planet the object is orbiting (you want a lower altitude over china, you need to decrease speed over america).
If you change the velocity the bullet exits the muzzle of the cannon (or the railgun or whatever), you are making the bullet go higher/lower at the other side, and then hitting the cannon faster/slower when it returns. That is, unless it reaches escape velocity (it'll never return) or hits the planet. To circularize the orbit (basically to make the bullet go higher over the cannon), you need to give it a push when it's on the other side of the planet, that's what the rocket is for.
And how are you supposed to provide such identification in a way that cannot be subverted by the user?
ID number -> easily replayed by the user
Biometrics -> Bitstring that can be replayed by the user
ID card -> fake "card" reader that replays the data
Same goes with the key that is generated from the data above.
Assuming that phase is unbreakable, how are you going to verify that "it has expired because the file was played on one of the original user's machine"? Don't think of a pc, think of a standalone mp3 player that has no connections to anything else (you connected to a host to upload the file, and you don't connect anymore).
And if it's allowed to play on all my machines, that does include my linux machine? How would you think libdrm.so would fare, considering I demand to see its source? What prevents me from capturing the audio while it's being piped to
DRM is a theoretically impossible idea, the phrase "If I can watch it, I can copy it" is probably the greatest truth about drm ever said.
Nah, it's his own code, since we know humans are still in 1.0 (at least some people are saying that). He never passed software engineering because he could never design anything properly (he's not too intelligent, you see).
Those people that keep saying "Nuke North Korea" or "Nuke Iran" aren't ignorant of the effects of a nuclear explosion (even if they don't know about most issues, they sure know it's a hell of a big explosion). They keep saying that because they live safely in the US, and they know North Korean or Iranian nukes can't reach them.
They would change their tune as soon as nuking NK/IR meant the US gets nuked in return (because a nuke might land in their backyard, not that the assholes care about a far away city).
The problem is that being written in the bible does not count as evidence when discussing science. So, whether the bible says "X" or "not X" is irrelevant.
That leaves us with: Science says "X" and the fundamentalist in the original post says "not X" without any evidence to support it. Considering all the evidence pointing to "X", I'd say we should believe "X" (at least for now), until someone comes with evidence supporting "not X".
That's what the scientist have been doing, everything seems to point to global warming. Phrases starting with "The bible proves...." should be immediately ignored in science (unless we're talking about physical properties of the book, etc).
First, let get straight that sealand is really not an sovereign nation, since nobody recognizes it and the fact that the royal navy does not take it back is more related to cats playing with food than two powers at war.
There is one possible use of sealand, provided that the UK has no problem with TPB: sealand is a perfect excuse to say "Sorry, but it is not in our jurisdiction".
Should the british government want a place to offload all that RIAA/piracy problem, sealand would be an EXCELLENT place: "independent", "sovereign", and surrounded by UK waters, so a MPAA/RIAA diesel sub or old soviet bomber would be messing with UK sovereignty, yet at hand, so that it can easily be invaded or sunk should there be anyther activity not sanctioned by the UK government (drug smuggling, money laundering, etc).
Basically, TPB on sealand will exist as soon as (as as long as) the UK government wants (or is bribed) to have a really big BT tracker at hand. They should negotiate with the british, then.
Reality check.
If you were a vendor that made such coins as a proof of concept, would you admit distributing COUNTERFEIT MONEY?
I guess we won't know what is this all about unless it was an error or some sort of government test.