make a card that detects when another player on the LAN is broadcasting and make a deliberate "collision" so that the data packet needs to be resent thus creating more lag. First of all, ethernet collisions only occur when an ethernet NIC is operating in half-duplex. (Half-duplex is when all the NICs talk and receive on the same wires. Full-duplex is where the Ethernet is using seperate wires for sending and receiving.) Generally, the only time your NIC is operating in half-duplex is when you are directly plugged into a hub or repeater. (Or if you're still using coaxial ethernet, in which case I pity you.) If you're plugged into a switch, you're probably running in full duplex. The only time when your idea would work is if both you and your opponent are plugged into hubs, and there are no switches (or other OSI Layer 2+ devices between you and him).
Second, half-duplex ethernet works by listening on the line to make sure nobody else is sending. If the line is clear, the NIC will then send its frame. Collisions (should) only occur when there are two or more NICs listening on the line, waiting for it to clear. When the line clears, they all simultaniously transmit, and you get a collision. This design makes it difficult to deliberately collide with your enemy's first frame, since you can't predict when he's going to send it. Of course, you could listen to see when he's sending and trash the rest of his data stream. But you're going to cause collisions that are going to cause delays and latency for everyone on that network segment.
Finally, you don't need specialized hardware to accomplish something like this. You just need hacked NIC drivers.
If you aren't that worried about security, you probably don't need 256-bit, 14 round AES. Consider finding software that uses Twofish or Blowfish, both of which are quite common in commercial software, and very fast. If you're really concerned with speed, you can use the XTEA algorithm. (AFAIK, no commercial software packages use this at the moment, so it might not be very helpful...)
This study is FUD, pure and simple. It carries the implied threat that the economy will crash and the world as we know it will end if something is not done to halt the "epidemic" of software piracy. Expect to see this next mentioned when the BSA introduces their next "anti-piracy" measure to congress.
First, it will be force-fed to our congresscritters, along with demands for some new uber-DMCA-type law. Next, you'll have the buzzword-laden lobbying. You'll have the obligitory crap about how "piracy funds terrorism" and how "protecting software companies," (somehow), "will support our troops and reduce terrorism." Someone will raise the point that child porn is produced "using pirated software" and that we need to "remember the children" by voting for BSA's new anti-piracy measure. Did I mention that BSA will be enclosing a $25,000 "campaign contributions" check with every copy of the "thank you for voting for our new law" letter?
Seriously, they don't just publish these "studies" for fun, they expect to get something political out of them. Expect to see something new from BSA soon, whether it be more laws, more anti-piracy pressures on Vietnam and other offenders, or just some new FUD media campaign.
All in all these new formats really are beneficial; what we should be asking is how this one is beneficial to Microsoft? They wouldn't (and neither would any business) waste their money on it for the good of mankind, and if it's truly open then they can't gain any control. They wouldn't do it for PR because they don't really need it and most users don't understand the details of graphical compression enough to appreciate it anyway. They can't do it in order to drop JPEG, it's just used in too many places. I'd be intrigued to know why they are doing this.
Let's take a look at WMA. Microsoft saw that there was a popular standard for lossily compressing audio... MP3. Microsoft sees Fraunhofer making a small fortune in patent royalties. More importantly, though, Microsoft saw that people could encode an MP3 and reasonably expect that it work on any platform--including non-Microsoft platforms.
Microsoft gets jealous. They don't want people being able to play their music collection without paying the Microsoft tax. So Microsoft says, "Let's develop a better lossy audio compression format... and make it only work on Windows." They develop the aptly-named Windows Media Audio format.
WMA only plays in Windows Media Player. Furthermore, Microsoft makes WMA the default format for ripping CD's. So when Joe User pops a CD into his PC, Windows Media Player rips it to the WMA format (and maybe even applies DRM to the ripped file). Now Joe user has music that will only play on another Windows PC (or, in the case of the DRM'd file, only on that particular PC). The music only plays on Joe User's MP3 player if his player supports WMA (and Janus).
Joe user is now locked into using Microsoft's platforms (or non-FOSS platforms that licensed the Microsoft technology). Joe user doesn't want to move to Linux, since he would lose his music collection. (Yes, I know mplayer, VLC, xine, etc can play WMA--if they use pirated Microsoft DLLs.) Joe is now locked into using Microsoft products, and paying the Microsoft tax like a good zombie. Effectively, Microsoft is now in control.
Obviously, the amount of vender lock in will depend on how Microsoft licenses this technology. Judging from past Microsoft formats (WMA, WMV, MS Office, etc.) , and from the ominous click-through licensing, I'm willing to bet that Microsoft uses this as yet another vender lock-in to trap Joe User.
It seems to me that Vonage and other US-based VoIP carriers would have a hard time with the department of Justice if they incorporated Zfone into their products. The CALEA requires providers to cooperate with law enforcement wiretapping.
For example, George Bush decides that you're a "Terrorist" and (without a warrant) orders your calls wiretapped. The Feds go to Vonage and demand to wiretap you. This leaves Vonage in a difficult position. What's going to happen if Vonage tells the Feds, "Sorry, but we can't give Bush a recording of this person's phone calls because our software/hardware incorporates strong encryption." Vonage will get hammered for failure to cooperate under the CALEA.
If VoIP providers incorporate Zfone in their software/hardware, you can bet there's some sort of backdoor so law enforcement can record your VoIP calls. If there's a law enforcement backdoor, some black-hat hacker will eventually find it. Then, you're right back where you started--anyone with some technical background can tap your conversation.
The only way Zfone is going to be useful is if it is implemented in an open source application. You can't be 100% sure that there isn't a flawed/buggy implementation or a deliberate backdoor if you can't see and review the source. So don't expect the VoIP providers to implement Zfone in their software. And if they do, unless they release thesource, it's probably snake-oil.
I seem to recall that SCO had the audacity to demand that Linux users pay them absurd amounts of money--for the privelage of using the software of their biggest competetor. They sued major corporations, costing millions of dollars in unfair settlements and court fees. They launched a FUD campaign against the Linux kernel, the GPL license, and FOSS.
They have not been able to produce a single piece of conclusive evidence that the Linux kernel contained their code. They didn't produce any when they were demanding licenses for Linux, and now they don't produce any in their case against IBM. They based their attack on Linux, not on any fact, but on FUD.
Now, they may have put Linux code in their kernel. They engaged in a FUD campaign against FOSS, claiming that it did/might contain copyrighted, proprietary code. They demanded that Linux customers pay them, since Linux 'did' contain 'their' UNIX code. while SCO had copyrighted, GPL'ed code in UnixWare.
Finally, we see that SCO was guilty all along. Instead of playing fair and opening the source of UnixWare, they started a full-scale holy war against Linux.
I wonder how much FUD is going to be stirred up when the GPL license comes back to haunt them?
Yet another power play from Microsoft, once again aimed at the world in general. If this case goes through, it will add yet more lock-in to Microsoft's already locked in platform, while hurting the world in general. Does this mean we can no longer view Flash content from Linux or OS X?
Furthermore, most ad-blocking software is based on some sort of internet plugin. So does this mean that we have to get bombarded with popup ads just because we don't run IE?
Does this mean we have to pay some huge licensing fee to create a plugin for a browser -- or worse, have to pay a huge fee and have to use Microsoft's development software to create a browser plugin?
This could be the end of the 'Web as we know it. Internet Explorer and Windows country from here on, folks.
Just think about what you're saying. How much good will it do to boycott a perfectly good website (or group of websites) because they are running M$ ads. The only way these so-called 'independent studies' will do Microsoft any good is if your computer-illiterate boss reads them--and if he's computer-illiterate, he's probably not going to be on a geek website. |;)
-- Warning! Microsoft Windows can be hazardous to your mental health.
Keep in mind that, while MS does have a good reason not to share their programmers and bandwidth with pirates, any un-updated PC can get the worm. The only way to eradicate the virus is to have everybody get the neccesary updates. Can't they punish software pirates another way?
-- Warning! Using Microsoft Windows can be hazardous to your mental sanity.
I can't think of a medium that is not used for some illegal activity. IRC, HTTP, FTP, P2P, and any number of others. What's bad is not the medium itself, but the individuals that misuse the medium...and the Media Industry that gives the medium the bad reputation. Not everything that goes on P2P is illegal. And not everything that goes on in IRC is illegal, as this article would have you to believe.
Danger: Extended usage of the Microsoft (TM) Windows (R) Operating System may cause damage to your mental health.
I agree with you that PC games are better. Not just cheaper, but overall better in quality.
Of course, is Microsoft or Sony going to give up their extra profits? Of course not! They'll use the DMCA to take Mod chip manufacturers... and users... to court?
One of the reasons that people put MOD chips in their consoles is not because of the desire to pirate games, etc. I don't know about the PS2 and Gamecube, but I know that Xbox has a signed code chip that only allows signed code--code that was either written or published by Microsoft--to run. I might want to run code that is not published by Microsoft on my XBox.
Linux on Xbox is free--how could they afford to pay Microsoft royalties? Linux can increase the functionality of the Xbox quite a bit, for free.
Of course, this could also be considered a threat by Microsoft. For example, you could download MPlayer and play DVDs for free, instead of paying some inflated price for MS's DVD playback kit.
Once again, this is a case of Proprietary vs. Open Source. If Microsoft would just give Linux the code signer, and market the XBox as a low-cost game system and PC, they could make more money, and afford to make the price higher.
The XBox could be marketed to a wider audience. Home users who don't want the compatibility problems, Windoze problems, etc that come with a PC could use an XBox to write their emails and letters.
The XBox could be sold for more. As I recall, Microsoft is losing about $100 per XBox sold. If they sold the XBox for say $200 then they could make more of a profit
Even after the price increase, the XBox would be cheaper than a PC because you wouldn't need to purchase the monitor (since most people have a TV in their house) and you wouldn't need to pay some outrageous price for a license of buggy Windows.
By allowing unsigned code on the Xbox, less people would have to use mod chips, which would keep Microsoft and others happier.
Once again, Microsoft is not marketing their products properly. If they could, they could still make a profit selling the games, and make a profit selling the consoles. And you wouldn't need a mod chip unless you were illegally copying software.
Slashdot Mirror
Second, half-duplex ethernet works by listening on the line to make sure nobody else is sending. If the line is clear, the NIC will then send its frame. Collisions (should) only occur when there are two or more NICs listening on the line, waiting for it to clear. When the line clears, they all simultaniously transmit, and you get a collision. This design makes it difficult to deliberately collide with your enemy's first frame, since you can't predict when he's going to send it. Of course, you could listen to see when he's sending and trash the rest of his data stream. But you're going to cause collisions that are going to cause delays and latency for everyone on that network segment.
Finally, you don't need specialized hardware to accomplish something like this. You just need hacked NIC drivers.
-- GoldenWolf
...your email is encrypted?
Use of PGP or something similar could easily defeat this.
If you aren't that worried about security, you probably don't need 256-bit, 14 round AES. Consider finding software that uses Twofish or Blowfish, both of which are quite common in commercial software, and very fast. If you're really concerned with speed, you can use the XTEA algorithm. (AFAIK, no commercial software packages use this at the moment, so it might not be very helpful...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XTEA
...if congresscritters weren't so gullable.
This study is FUD, pure and simple. It carries the implied threat that the economy will crash and the world as we know it will end if something is not done to halt the "epidemic" of software piracy. Expect to see this next mentioned when the BSA introduces their next "anti-piracy" measure to congress.
First, it will be force-fed to our congresscritters, along with demands for some new uber-DMCA-type law.
Next, you'll have the buzzword-laden lobbying. You'll have the obligitory crap about how "piracy funds terrorism" and how "protecting software companies," (somehow), "will support our troops and reduce terrorism." Someone will raise the point that child porn is produced "using pirated software" and that we need to "remember the children" by voting for BSA's new anti-piracy measure.
Did I mention that BSA will be enclosing a $25,000 "campaign contributions" check with every copy of the "thank you for voting for our new law" letter?
Seriously, they don't just publish these "studies" for fun, they expect to get something political out of them. Expect to see something new from BSA soon, whether it be more laws, more anti-piracy pressures on Vietnam and other offenders, or just some new FUD media campaign.
All in all these new formats really are beneficial; what we should be asking is how this one is beneficial to Microsoft? They wouldn't (and neither would any business) waste their money on it for the good of mankind, and if it's truly open then they can't gain any control. They wouldn't do it for PR because they don't really need it and most users don't understand the details of graphical compression enough to appreciate it anyway. They can't do it in order to drop JPEG, it's just used in too many places. I'd be intrigued to know why they are doing this.
Let's take a look at WMA. Microsoft saw that there was a popular standard for lossily compressing audio... MP3. Microsoft sees Fraunhofer making a small fortune in patent royalties. More importantly, though, Microsoft saw that people could encode an MP3 and reasonably expect that it work on any platform--including non-Microsoft platforms.
Microsoft gets jealous. They don't want people being able to play their music collection without paying the Microsoft tax. So Microsoft says, "Let's develop a better lossy audio compression format... and make it only work on Windows." They develop the aptly-named Windows Media Audio format.
WMA only plays in Windows Media Player. Furthermore, Microsoft makes WMA the default format for ripping CD's. So when Joe User pops a CD into his PC, Windows Media Player rips it to the WMA format (and maybe even applies DRM to the ripped file). Now Joe user has music that will only play on another Windows PC (or, in the case of the DRM'd file, only on that particular PC). The music only plays on Joe User's MP3 player if his player supports WMA (and Janus).
Joe user is now locked into using Microsoft's platforms (or non-FOSS platforms that licensed the Microsoft technology). Joe user doesn't want to move to Linux, since he would lose his music collection. (Yes, I know mplayer, VLC, xine, etc can play WMA--if they use pirated Microsoft DLLs.) Joe is now locked into using Microsoft products, and paying the Microsoft tax like a good zombie. Effectively, Microsoft is now in control.
Obviously, the amount of vender lock in will depend on how Microsoft licenses this technology. Judging from past Microsoft formats (WMA, WMV, MS Office, etc.) , and from the ominous click-through licensing, I'm willing to bet that Microsoft uses this as yet another vender lock-in to trap Joe User.
Tor (www.tor.eff.org) would be another solution. It's not totally impervious to wiretapping, but it will make life harder for "law enforcement."
It seems to me that Vonage and other US-based VoIP carriers would have a hard time with the department of Justice if they incorporated Zfone into their products. The CALEA requires providers to cooperate with law enforcement wiretapping.
t ance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
For example, George Bush decides that you're a "Terrorist" and (without a warrant) orders your calls wiretapped. The Feds go to Vonage and demand to wiretap you. This leaves Vonage in a difficult position. What's going to happen if Vonage tells the Feds, "Sorry, but we can't give Bush a recording of this person's phone calls because our software/hardware incorporates strong encryption." Vonage will get hammered for failure to cooperate under the CALEA.
If VoIP providers incorporate Zfone in their software/hardware, you can bet there's some sort of backdoor so law enforcement can record your VoIP calls. If there's a law enforcement backdoor, some black-hat hacker will eventually find it. Then, you're right back where you started--anyone with some technical background can tap your conversation.
The only way Zfone is going to be useful is if it is implemented in an open source application. You can't be 100% sure that there isn't a flawed/buggy implementation or a deliberate backdoor if you can't see and review the source. So don't expect the VoIP providers to implement Zfone in their software. And if they do, unless they release thesource, it's probably snake-oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assis
I seem to recall that SCO had the audacity to demand that Linux users pay them absurd amounts of money--for the privelage of using the software of their biggest competetor. They sued major corporations, costing millions of dollars in unfair settlements and court fees. They launched a FUD campaign against the Linux kernel, the GPL license, and FOSS.
They have not been able to produce a single piece of conclusive evidence that the Linux kernel contained their code. They didn't produce any when they were demanding licenses for Linux, and now they don't produce any in their case against IBM. They based their attack on Linux, not on any fact, but on FUD.
Now, they may have put Linux code in their kernel. They engaged in a FUD campaign against FOSS, claiming that it did/might contain copyrighted, proprietary code. They demanded that Linux customers pay them, since Linux 'did' contain 'their' UNIX code. while SCO had copyrighted, GPL'ed code in UnixWare.
Finally, we see that SCO was guilty all along. Instead of playing fair and opening the source of UnixWare, they started a full-scale holy war against Linux.
I wonder how much FUD is going to be stirred up when the GPL license comes back to haunt them?
Yet another power play from Microsoft, once again aimed at the world in general. If this case goes through, it will add yet more lock-in to Microsoft's already locked in platform, while hurting the world in general. Does this mean we can no longer view Flash content from Linux or OS X?
Furthermore, most ad-blocking software is based on some sort of internet plugin. So does this mean that we have to get bombarded with popup ads just because we don't run IE?
Does this mean we have to pay some huge licensing fee to create a plugin for a browser -- or worse, have to pay a huge fee and have to use Microsoft's development software to create a browser plugin?
This could be the end of the 'Web as we know it. Internet Explorer and Windows country from here on, folks.
How about somebody from the open source community cracks the iPod DRM, GPL the code, and let people from every platform use their iPods how they want.
That would be better than Real trying to sell their own half-baked software to Windows users.
Just think about what you're saying. How much good will it do to boycott a perfectly good website (or group of websites) because they are running M$ ads. The only way these so-called 'independent studies' will do Microsoft any good is if your computer-illiterate boss reads them--and if he's computer-illiterate, he's probably not going to be on a geek website. |;)
-- Warning! Microsoft Windows can be hazardous to your mental health.
Keep in mind that, while MS does have a good reason not to share their programmers and bandwidth with pirates, any un-updated PC can get the worm. The only way to eradicate the virus is to have everybody get the neccesary updates. Can't they punish software pirates another way?
-- Warning! Using Microsoft Windows can be hazardous to your mental sanity.
I can't think of a medium that is not used for some illegal activity. IRC, HTTP, FTP, P2P, and any number of others. What's bad is not the medium itself, but the individuals that misuse the medium...and the Media Industry that gives the medium the bad reputation. Not everything that goes on P2P is illegal. And not everything that goes on in IRC is illegal, as this article would have you to believe.
Danger: Extended usage of the Microsoft (TM) Windows (R) Operating System may cause damage to your mental health.
Let's just hope that this type of tax garbage doesn't come to the US. We've already got enough problems with the DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft.
I agree with you that PC games are better. Not just cheaper, but overall better in quality.
Of course, is Microsoft or Sony going to give up their extra profits? Of course not! They'll use the DMCA to take Mod chip manufacturers... and users... to court?
One of the reasons that people put MOD chips in their consoles is not because of the desire to pirate games, etc. I don't know about the PS2 and Gamecube, but I know that Xbox has a signed code chip that only allows signed code--code that was either written or published by Microsoft--to run. I might want to run code that is not published by Microsoft on my XBox.
Linux on Xbox is free--how could they afford to pay Microsoft royalties? Linux can increase the functionality of the Xbox quite a bit, for free.
Of course, this could also be considered a threat by Microsoft. For example, you could download MPlayer and play DVDs for free, instead of paying some inflated price for MS's DVD playback kit.
Once again, this is a case of Proprietary vs. Open Source. If Microsoft would just give Linux the code signer, and market the XBox as a low-cost game system and PC, they could make more money, and afford to make the price higher.
The XBox could be marketed to a wider audience. Home users who don't want the compatibility problems, Windoze problems, etc that come with a PC could use an XBox to write their emails and letters.
The XBox could be sold for more. As I recall, Microsoft is losing about $100 per XBox sold. If they sold the XBox for say $200 then they could make more of a profit
Even after the price increase, the XBox would be cheaper than a PC because you wouldn't need to purchase the monitor (since most people have a TV in their house) and you wouldn't need to pay some outrageous price for a license of buggy Windows.
By allowing unsigned code on the Xbox, less people would have to use mod chips, which would keep Microsoft and others happier.
Once again, Microsoft is not marketing their products properly. If they could, they could still make a profit selling the games, and make a profit selling the consoles. And you wouldn't need a mod chip unless you were illegally copying software.
-- GoldenWolf