You can make a program that makes the pc think there's a dongle in the usb socket.
That's not so easy with a challenge-response system. Cracking can be made practically impossible by using tricks that banks have been using for years now. For example, immersing the hardware inside the dongle into resin, then wrapping its power-supply leads (a very thin pair of wires) into the resin, and letting it dry. The moment somebody will try to open it up to read its memory, the wire will break and memory will be erased.
By cryptography, i meant a challenge-response system... like when the dongle poses a challenge, and the game software must return the right response... last i checked, that is not easily defeated.
Of course the dongle should contain some kind of cpu, but that should be no problem.
why can't they distribute the source code? it's an open-source project after all...
further, you have to think a little out of the box here... compilation is just translation from one language into the other. they might as well just ship the assembly code, and assemble it (i.e., call "as") when the user presses "ok". perhaps even the binary code could do, as long as there is an "ok" button.
you see, it is not illegal to distribute the text of a patent, verbatim, so it should not be illegal to distribute a machine-readable version of that patent.
Well, for freetype, many linux distributions actually did include the patented material (i.e., they threw on the compile-time switch without actually asking the user). Here's a passage from the freetype page regarding this issue:
Finally, many Linux distributions seem to distribute a patched version of FreeType 2 with the bytecode interpreter activated, unlike the sources we distribute. Of course, we can only deny any kind of responsibility in this case. It further means that in the event where you need to update the version of FreeType installed on your system from our sources, you should better manually activate the bytecode interpreter at compile time in order to prevent any loss of quality.
Mozilla would have to do it via a compile time switch too
I see no fundamental problems with that. Just let firefox do a little compiling when the user presses the "OK" button.
This solution may be a little bizarre, but that is exactly what the whole patent situation is... especially in this case of open communication standards.
Repeat after me: H.264 is NOT FREE, not by a long way.
So, they could implement the format and disable it by default. If users want to use it, or if they are allowed in their country, they have to enable it. Just show some popup when some site wants to use HTML5, and users will click "OK", you can bet on that.
Something similar is done by the freetype project: http://freetype.sourceforge.net/patents.html, although in that case the patent can be circumvented by setting a compile-time switch.
Making a two-hour film takes a significant amount of time out of many peoples' lives.
Perhaps, instead of turning "story telling" into a profession and telling everybody what may and may not be copied, while manipulating public opinion, these people should find real jobs like the rest of us.
is it really wise for Mozilla to be so dependent on Google?
Nope. In fact, it would be wise to weaken its links to google. For example, by binding to more than one search engine. What's important, though, is that search results are presented with a consistent interface, so that users will not feel any negative side-effects from switching between engines.
Since google has started commoditizing the browser-industry, it seems that it's now time for the browsers to start commoditizing the search engines...
Solution: just don't give anyone else the key to your encrypted data. And certainly not the third-parties.
The problem is, though, that web-browsers don't (yet) have good support for encryption/decryption of data. The only encryption supported well is the TLS connection to the webserver, but that one doesn't count since it merely allows you to talk to the webserver (i.e., the third-party).
Another problem with client-side-encryption is that the third-parties cannot manipulate or index your data, but that could also be done on the client, i suppose.
Perhaps his real problem is that google is commoditizing the software industry.
I'd say better get used to it, and start making real applications that serve a certain niche, instead of the mainstream applications that everybody uses.
It uses human slaves to turn the pages, since robots aren't as gentle.
Hmm... if I were google, I would use suction power to flip the pages... take a pipe, drill in some holes, and attach a vacuum cleaner... then attach the pipe to some robot arm.
Slashdot Mirror
You can make a program that makes the pc think there's a dongle in the usb socket.
That's not so easy with a challenge-response system. Cracking can be made practically impossible by using tricks that banks have been using for years now. For example, immersing the hardware inside the dongle into resin, then wrapping its power-supply leads (a very thin pair of wires) into the resin, and letting it dry. The moment somebody will try to open it up to read its memory, the wire will break and memory will be erased.
By cryptography, i meant a challenge-response system... like when the dongle poses a challenge, and the game software must return the right response... last i checked, that is not easily defeated.
Of course the dongle should contain some kind of cpu, but that should be no problem.
Why don't they just use the old "dongle" approach?
If part of the game is inside a usb-stick, with some added cryptography to spice it up a little, it can be just as safe.
Spammers will just incorporate this technique into their botnets to test whether sending certain spam will succeed.
Humans Nearly Went Extinct 1.2M Years Ago
So, Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, and software patents existed back then also?
buying apple products is not about creativity (how many different products do they have anyway)
Yes, like plumbers are, to some extent, professors in fluid dynamics ;)
Most of the programmers have great skills solving a computer science problem
Not really accurate. Computer scientists invent and analyze algorithms, whereas programmers just implement them.
why can't they distribute the source code? it's an open-source project after all...
further, you have to think a little out of the box here... compilation is just translation from one language into the other. they might as well just ship the assembly code, and assemble it (i.e., call "as") when the user presses "ok". perhaps even the binary code could do, as long as there is an "ok" button.
you see, it is not illegal to distribute the text of a patent, verbatim, so it should not be illegal to distribute a machine-readable version of that patent.
Redundancy turns precious information to noise.
Funny thing is, that was exactly what the article was all about!
Well, for freetype, many linux distributions actually did include the patented material (i.e., they threw on the compile-time switch without actually asking the user). Here's a passage from the freetype page regarding this issue:
Finally, many Linux distributions seem to distribute a patched version of FreeType 2 with the bytecode interpreter activated, unlike the sources we distribute. Of course, we can only deny any kind of responsibility in this case. It further means that in the event where you need to update the version of FreeType installed on your system from our sources, you should better manually activate the bytecode interpreter at compile time in order to prevent any loss of quality.
those that do risk all sorts of other nasties being bundled along with it
Nope. You only risk being sued if you try to sell something containing patented technology.
Mozilla would have to do it via a compile time switch too
I see no fundamental problems with that. Just let firefox do a little compiling when the user presses the "OK" button.
This solution may be a little bizarre, but that is exactly what the whole patent situation is... especially in this case of open communication standards.
Repeat after me: H.264 is NOT FREE, not by a long way.
So, they could implement the format and disable it by default. If users want to use it, or if they are allowed in their country, they have to enable it. Just show some
popup when some site wants to use HTML5, and users will click "OK", you can bet on that.
Something similar is done by the freetype project: http://freetype.sourceforge.net/patents.html, although in that case the patent can be circumvented by setting a compile-time switch.
latency is also important for voice-over-IP...
Youtube has boob videos?
Hint for (new) competitors: support these videos and you'll quickly grow bigger than youtube!
isn't there a cellphone/iphone version of keepass to remedy these problems?
Making a two-hour film takes a significant amount of time out of many peoples' lives.
Perhaps, instead of turning "story telling" into a profession and telling everybody what may and may not be copied, while manipulating public opinion, these people should find real jobs like the rest of us.
Let's hope that they will polish up Bing's interface while they are at it.
is it really wise for Mozilla to be so dependent on Google?
Nope. In fact, it would be wise to weaken its links to google. For example, by binding to more than one search engine. What's important, though, is that search results are presented with a consistent interface, so that users will not feel any negative side-effects from switching between engines.
Since google has started commoditizing the browser-industry, it seems that it's now time for the browsers to start commoditizing the search engines...
Solution: just don't give anyone else the key to your encrypted data. And certainly not the third-parties.
The problem is, though, that web-browsers don't (yet) have good support for encryption/decryption of data.
The only encryption supported well is the TLS connection to the webserver, but that one doesn't count since it merely allows you to talk to the webserver (i.e., the third-party).
Another problem with client-side-encryption is that the third-parties cannot manipulate or index your data, but that could also be done on the client, i suppose.
google builds self-destructing data-centers that explode and erase all data when the chinese seize them...
Vim doesn't need any special keys
But please, can they make the Escape key on laptops a little bit bigger?
Perhaps his real problem is that google is commoditizing the software industry.
I'd say better get used to it, and start making real applications that serve a certain niche, instead of the mainstream applications that everybody uses.
It uses human slaves to turn the pages, since robots aren't as gentle.
Hmm... if I were google, I would use suction power to flip the pages... take a pipe, drill in some holes, and attach a vacuum cleaner... then attach the pipe to some robot arm.