I disagree, as I said above revoking keys for a software player won't disable the $1k hardware. The $1k hardware will be much harder to compromise because it probably uses tamper-resistant measures, so its keys will be left alone longer.
tamper-resistant. not tamper-proof. given enough time and manpower, hardware keys will be broken. and if they try to disable that key, they're stupider than i thought.
suddenly thousands of players won't play new movies. can you say "class-action lawsuit"?
and such a method would likely prevent it from being run on dedicated hardware too. the ultimate in DRM. make it unwatchable. perfect patching of a analog hole.
Interesting... *ahem* I hereby declare myself the sexiest man alive! Now all I have to do is just repeat it often enough that everyone starts believing it...;)
well, if you repeat as much as sony's marketing budget would allow, it's likely that a number of people would start believing it.
Sure, there are less accidents with nuclear power plants than conventional power plants. However, when one does occur, the accident at the nuclear plant is orders of magnitude greater than a conventional plant. I agree nuclear plants can be very safe, but it only takes one accident to render hundreds of miles of land unusable for a couple generations.
for modern reactors, it is pretty much impossible to have that kind of accident. even if you completely cut off the coolant to the thing, it will just keep heating up until it hits a certain point, at which the reaction will slow, and stop, shutting down the reactor. they have actually tested this by doing just that, cutting off coolant.
about the only way to cause a major nuclear accident in a modern reactor would be to drop a good sized nuclear bomb on it.
remember, the total death toll of 3 mile island was 0.
Going to nuclear is only a transformation of waste. Simply this is a shift in waste not a solution. Then suddenly its no longer CO2 but it is some radioactive stuff that needs to be buried for thousends of years underground. One might store CO2 in the first place underground and skip the expensive uranium in between. Remember uranium isn't an endless power solution either, thats why we try to research fusion. Uranium is a limited feul on earth. The best things here would be a natural energy source.
if you run the "radioactive stuff" through an integral fast reactor, you end up with even more energy, and waste that needs to be stored for about 300 years (which is not very long relatively and rather easy to do with a random abandoned salt mine or something)
yes, uranium is a limited source, but if you consider it, solar power is a limited resource. current estimate say there is a world suply of about 4.7 million tonnes of pure urainium extractable at reasonable cost. and reactors don't use it very quickly, so there is enough to do us until we figure out how to get energy out of fusion or something else.
How does the amount of energy derived from $PROCESSing waste compare to the amount that went into producing it?
you actually get more energy by processing it. the waste fuels another type of reactor, called an integral fast reactor, which then produces a differant kind of waste. the waste produced by the IFR is very short term stuff. relatively anyway. the waste it comsumes takes several hundred thousand years to become safe, but the short term stuff only requires a few hundred years to be safe and there's less of it.
Guerilla warfare is very effective as a political tool, it has limited military value. It's primary purpose is not to "win," it's to induce weariness in the enemy through disruption.
and when the weariness gets too great, public opinion begins to turn, then the other side gives up and goes home, which is a win by default, which is all they need. they don't need to kill every single one of the soldiers.
it's certainly possible, though not really a good idea, due to the nature of rockets.
they are not adaquately reliable for that. they still fail at least 1% of the time, and with current rockets, you'd need to be launching thousands to even deal with the waste we've built up.
a far better idea would be to run it through another reactor and just stow the short-term waste in said mines for a much shorter period (a few hundred years vs. a few hundred thousand)
well, we (Canada) are working on afganistan, though no one seems to want to help us with it. not meaning the US, as they have their hands full with iraq.
though this is yet another example of how damn effective gururla warfare is. the only time you tend to see terms like "dishonourable conduct" and "unfair tactics" is from the side that is not doing well.
if you don't buy that it is effective, consider that the enemy, armed with AK-47s, RPGs, high explosives, and dedication to their cause, are holding their own against what is likely the most expensive and advanced miltary in the world.
the purpose of tor is not to hide that you're using tor. the purpose is to hide what you're doing and where you are. a man in the middle (IT in this instance) has no clue where you are going or what you are accessing and the server on the other end has no clue where you actually are.
tor encrypted packets practically scream that tor is being used. the thing with tor is that they (IT) don't have the slightest clue what or where he is accessing and the place/thing that he is accessing has no clue where he is.
speaking as someone who is diagnosed with it, though i do agree that most here don't have it, it is not trivial and is not a result of "burying one's none in a computer".
much of your normal social interaction isn't quite learned in the typical sense. it is ingrained rather deeply. you don't even notice all the things you pick up on someone, which is what i don't pick up on. not having those subtle cues that people assume you pick up on does make things very awkward in meeting people.
that isn't the only effect, but it is definitely one of the most noticeable ones.
Now, if I understand TOR correctly, wouldn't they see the child porn request, then just another indecipherably encrypted request (your order for Viagra) being sent off to some random TOR router?
i believe that the guy is refering to if the computer is acting as an exit node.
Slashdot Mirror
i'm amazed too. i was going for funny.
similar headline, but not the same case. that one was about google's web caching, this one is about google news.
that one was about google cache infringing on copyright. this one is about google news infringing on copyright.
so yes, multiple court cases.
IDKFA
Now why would they do that, unless they can get the money you all are too "principled" to pay to the artist in the first place.
because they like a challenge? i haven't heard of DVDJon receiving any godly sums of money.
yes, i realize this guy is likely a troll.
I disagree, as I said above revoking keys for a software player won't disable the $1k hardware. The $1k hardware will be much harder to compromise because it probably uses tamper-resistant measures, so its keys will be left alone longer.
tamper-resistant. not tamper-proof. given enough time and manpower, hardware keys will be broken. and if they try to disable that key, they're stupider than i thought.
suddenly thousands of players won't play new movies. can you say "class-action lawsuit"?
and such a method would likely prevent it from being run on dedicated hardware too. the ultimate in DRM. make it unwatchable. perfect patching of a analog hole.
They could revoke just the key in the offending software player
and then we sit back and watch a (small) mob storm movie execs because they can't play their HD movies with their brand-new $1,000 Blu-ray drives.
Interesting... *ahem* I hereby declare myself the sexiest man alive! ;)
Now all I have to do is just repeat it often enough that everyone starts believing it...
well, if you repeat as much as sony's marketing budget would allow, it's likely that a number of people would start believing it.
What does this have to do with DRM?
two words : system overhead.
death doesn't get worse every year.
have you seen the price of funerals these days?
Sure, there are less accidents with nuclear power plants than conventional power plants. However, when one does occur, the accident at the nuclear plant is orders of magnitude greater than a conventional plant. I agree nuclear plants can be very safe, but it only takes one accident to render hundreds of miles of land unusable for a couple generations.
for modern reactors, it is pretty much impossible to have that kind of accident. even if you completely cut off the coolant to the thing, it will just keep heating up until it hits a certain point, at which the reaction will slow, and stop, shutting down the reactor. they have actually tested this by doing just that, cutting off coolant.
about the only way to cause a major nuclear accident in a modern reactor would be to drop a good sized nuclear bomb on it.
remember, the total death toll of 3 mile island was 0.
Going to nuclear is only a transformation of waste. Simply this is a shift in waste not a solution. Then suddenly its no longer CO2 but it is some radioactive stuff that needs to be buried for thousends of years underground. One might store CO2 in the first place underground and skip the expensive uranium in between. Remember uranium isn't an endless power solution either, thats why we try to research fusion. Uranium is a limited feul on earth. The best things here would be a natural energy source.
if you run the "radioactive stuff" through an integral fast reactor, you end up with even more energy, and waste that needs to be stored for about 300 years (which is not very long relatively and rather easy to do with a random abandoned salt mine or something)
yes, uranium is a limited source, but if you consider it, solar power is a limited resource. current estimate say there is a world suply of about 4.7 million tonnes of pure urainium extractable at reasonable cost. and reactors don't use it very quickly, so there is enough to do us until we figure out how to get energy out of fusion or something else.
How does the amount of energy derived from $PROCESSing waste compare to the amount that went into producing it?
you actually get more energy by processing it. the waste fuels another type of reactor, called an integral fast reactor, which then produces a differant kind of waste. the waste produced by the IFR is very short term stuff. relatively anyway. the waste it comsumes takes several hundred thousand years to become safe, but the short term stuff only requires a few hundred years to be safe and there's less of it.
I don't think that it is on the reading list for college educated bureaucrats.
eh, it's very valid for many things past the battlefield. it's rather common for it to be required reading in business-oriented schooling.
Guerilla warfare is very effective as a political tool, it has limited military value. It's primary purpose is not to "win," it's to induce weariness in the enemy through disruption.
and when the weariness gets too great, public opinion begins to turn, then the other side gives up and goes home, which is a win by default, which is all they need. they don't need to kill every single one of the soldiers.
it's certainly possible, though not really a good idea, due to the nature of rockets.
they are not adaquately reliable for that. they still fail at least 1% of the time, and with current rockets, you'd need to be launching thousands to even deal with the waste we've built up.
a far better idea would be to run it through another reactor and just stow the short-term waste in said mines for a much shorter period (a few hundred years vs. a few hundred thousand)
why can't the preview and submit buttons be further apart? i wasn't done yet...
anyway, look at the list of stuff they're working on and are requesting assitance with.
http://tor.eff.org/volunteer.html.en/
they've got a bunch of stuff planned, but stuff takes time. if you know what to do for any of the stuff, get in there and go at it!
they're working on it. they're only at 0.1.1.26, this is still heavy beta, give it time. Linux didn't spring up overnight either.
well, we (Canada) are working on afganistan, though no one seems to want to help us with it. not meaning the US, as they have their hands full with iraq.
though this is yet another example of how damn effective gururla warfare is. the only time you tend to see terms like "dishonourable conduct" and "unfair tactics" is from the side that is not doing well.
if you don't buy that it is effective, consider that the enemy, armed with AK-47s, RPGs, high explosives, and dedication to their cause, are holding their own against what is likely the most expensive and advanced miltary in the world.
the purpose of tor is not to hide that you're using tor. the purpose is to hide what you're doing and where you are. a man in the middle (IT in this instance) has no clue where you are going or what you are accessing and the server on the other end has no clue where you actually are.
tor encrypted packets practically scream that tor is being used. the thing with tor is that they (IT) don't have the slightest clue what or where he is accessing and the place/thing that he is accessing has no clue where he is.
speaking as someone who is diagnosed with it, though i do agree that most here don't have it, it is not trivial and is not a result of "burying one's none in a computer".
much of your normal social interaction isn't quite learned in the typical sense. it is ingrained rather deeply. you don't even notice all the things you pick up on someone, which is what i don't pick up on. not having those subtle cues that people assume you pick up on does make things very awkward in meeting people.
that isn't the only effect, but it is definitely one of the most noticeable ones.
Now, if I understand TOR correctly, wouldn't they see the child porn request, then just another indecipherably encrypted request (your order for Viagra) being sent off to some random TOR router?
i believe that the guy is refering to if the computer is acting as an exit node.
the engine would produce a much smaller signal on a radar, making it likely that it won't be identified as a plane.