You can implement a billion "security features", it won't mean jack as long as the only channel between bank and user is the computer. If that channel has been corrupted, the corrupter will be able to alter, delete or forge any kind of information either side should (in his opinion) get about the other end. There is no way to remove this problem unless you open a second, secure channel which is independent of the machine used for bank transfers. Exactly. I have a phone, can't we use that as the second channel?
Re:Why do this?
on
AMD's New DRM
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
My guess is that as Intel, Nvidia, and AMD start to implement stuff like this, a market for Via processors and more off the wall graphics ships like S3 and Trident (is Trident still in business) will open up amongst the hacker/enthusiast community. The question is will you accept a computer that might run a tad slower (and might not run some commercial software programs at all) for the price of using it how you see fit. YES
Battery technology will experience a sort of Moore's Law with the demand for hybrid and all-electric vehicles. This is just one of the first stories.
I'm always a bit skeptical of such items till I understand how likely it is to cause a fire in my garage while I'm sleeping or when accelerating away from a stop light. New tech is great, but means not a lot till tested in the real world.
With battery technology, the higher the density, the higher the chances of uncontrolled energy release. When it's safe and fairly cheap, then I'll be really interested.
I guess that nobody with VC understands that DRM is simply a VERY expensive, very stressful game of whack-a-mole.
It amazes me that so many people believe that they can do the DRM game and make huge money. Recent news tells me that if the US government is trying to influence other countries to do more about copyright infringement, well then, DRM must not work worth a damn, otherwise there would be no need for US Governmental intervention. With that bit of proof that it won't work, doesn't work, and can't work, it should be relatively obvious to all concerned that the only way that DRM *CAN* work is if governments create laws that make it illegal to not use DRM.
Media and content providers simply have to get on the right bandwagon... DRM isn't it. No matter what fantastically great work they do for any particular DRM scheme it will always end up broken. There is no method that can reasonably ensure secure keys when the unencrypted content has to be present to view it. Sigh, old dogs, new tricks, bad circus experiences....
I have a few thoughts about that. Basically, I believe it will come down to a clever set of programs that are used as SAS on the company's intranet. That is to say when a document isn't loading correctly, open a browser and go to the conversion site, click the upload link and have the converted document emailed back to you, or some similar kind of thing. That means only one install of the converters, only one place to worry about it. Anyone can use them.
This is how things should be done anyway, use the intranet that you have. Once that happens MS really is in trouble in this regard. If a company can do batch conversions it would be possible to scan your local drive and then convert every document and replace it with ODF compliant documents.
At that point there is no longer a compatibility issue, just the conversion time as an issue.
for anyone to see that the **AA are purely criminal in nature. What they can't get away with in the courts they are now asking for permission to break the law, or be exempt from it.
Since it would be illegal, never mind impractical, killing off the **AA is not an option. I wish it was easy enough to simply boycott them out of existence. Perhaps this kind of move by the **AA will lead to a boycott that does really hurt them. I hope so.
Shaw cable on the western side of Canada also mangles packets. Check with Vonage to find out how Shaw is trying to cripple their business by dropping calls, packets, or just dropping the network connection for people using Vonage VoIP.
However, it was not illegal for Trunked radio systemms. These are the kinds of radios that you see in police, fire, ambulance, and rescue vehicles. In 1986 I was working on such systems. The included a 300bps control channel, 4wire-2wire adapters (that were difficult to balance) and later full duplex audio.
While it maybe was an is illegal for Ham operators to connect to phone lines, they did so during wars to help sailors make phone calls back home.
Exactly. There is always something that these stories leave out. The only thing that is critically certain is that the RIAA has killed their member's businesses, or is trying really *REALLY* hard to kill them.
Everyone in that business will get hurt in one way or another because the RIAA persecuted its customers. Way to go RIAA...
Aside from bashing them, I feel a bit sad because of the inevitable lull in available good music there will be between the death throws of the current music industry and when it reinvents itself, if it does.
You might also want to stop and have lunch with the guys from NTP before visiting the offices of RIM. Oh, while you're waiting at the airport, try reading GrokLaw for a bit.
If you would like to know about patents elsewhere, I'm sure that Googling EU+Microsoft+Patent will get you enough bedtime reading for the rest of the month.
I'd mod you up if I had points.... I get a list of recalled products on a regular basis and >90% of those are manufactured in China. I don't really think that China is up to the standard that you need to be on par, never mind above par with the rest of the world.
The fact that there are reports of thousands of industrial spies in North America from China backs up what you say. Without political and social reform, China is a boiling pot that is about to spill over and put the fire out beneath it.
Its not about two countries disagreeing on what laws take precedence. It is about the world's governments finding out that pandora's box is wide open. Information is free, and wants more freedom. When there were only TV and radio stations and newspapers, it was fair to regulate access to them to ensure electoral fair play. Well, say hello to the Internet! It is all three of those mediums wrapped in one nice simple package. The rules need to change when the game changes, and the game has definitely changed regardless of whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
Censorship, for whatever reason is not right. Limiting public access by political candidates is one thing, but limiting all other speech related to it is censorship. By posting a video on YouTube, I can tell the world "hey, look what this guy said. Isn't that bad?"
To require that YouTube limit such speech is overbearing and stupid. One reason this is so is because the government trying to do so will have to play whack-a-mole with every other video sharing site as well. The lid to pandora's box can't be closed that easy. Please let's not forget that YouTube is just ONE video sharing site, and they are taking the brunt of the complaints when the problem should be shared by all video sharing sites.... or none. I vote for the latter.
Governments that believe they can limit the content on the Internet are not only fooling themselves, they are showing the entire world that they are both clueless and in need of removal from office.
Yes, governments could simply shut off access to the outside world and censor all Internet activity within their borders, but that would harm their economy and drive the populace to dislike them vehemently.
Why is Congress fighting anything? They are a legislative branch, not a law enforcement branch! Yes, sure, they have to be informed to create appropriate legislative action, but NO NEW LAWS are required.
Federal financial aid to educational institutions should not be messed with to "fight piracy"
If they want to fight piracy, authorize some more money. When new taxes are levied to 'fight piracy' perhaps joe public will pay attention. Additionally, like the war on drugs, this war on piracy is misguided at best.
Copyright laws seem to be working just fine for everyone but the **AA. Why is that? This is what Congress should be doing; asking why the **AA are having so much trouble when other people are not.
Exactly! None of this is new as far as I can figure out. If it was truly an innovation or AI, it would scan the video/audio clips and recognize Jay Lenno's voice and have that trigger a flag for infringement. Unfortunately I don't think that they have managed to catalog a database of copyrighted works based on such things.
With any luck at all, the **AA will spend billions on this patented claptrap only to find out 2 years from now that there is no way to make it work without landing themselves in even deeper shit with consumers.
how this will be translated into some sort of attempt to regulate craig's list entries to ensure that the children are safe and no copyrights are infringed or something like that. If YouTube is being sued to police the content on their site, shouldn't Craig's List police their site too?
Call me cynical but I just know someone is going to try this lame kind of reasoning to enact more laws we don't need...
the article was a bit 'light' on the details. It would be more enlightening if they had revealed even a ray of technical information. One tenth of the cost? For equal power output?
How long before we see a defection and find out that N.Korea or some other evil empire's government is sponsoring this type of activity. All that malware out there isn't just annoying you with spam, a lot of it is trying industrial espionage.
Hold on there cowboy... I'm pretty sure you won't have much problem finding or getting the same information from F/OSS software!
Just because MS wants to suck the money out of every pocket they can, use monopolistic practices, mafia like business tactics and other ills often mentioned on/. doesn't mean that they deserve that money.
If MS really wanted to be nice, they could be. They don't. They *WANT* to keep sucking all the money they can from all the pockets that they can, and will use any and all tactics that they can get away with to continue to do so.
For me, that is just business. There are worse businesses in this world. It's also why I choose F/OSS now without even thinking about what I might lose by not having MS products in my household. Whatever the alternative is, I feel better knowing that I won't be fscked in a couple years to get an upgrade or patch.
Getting paid for doing something is one thing, being forced to stop monopolistic practices is another.
except in this case, the Monopoly is generated by the fact that just about anyone that buys a new computer will have that product installed on it by default. The fact that its incredibly difficult to get a new big name pc without Windows pre-installed is in itself wrong.
I hope that this current situation actually does translate to lower new pc sales for the big name manufacturers, giving them pause to think about shipping with GNU/Linux or no OS at all, and do so at an equitable cost structure. Equitable cost structure is one where computers are cheaper without software pre-installed. Yes, I know that this is problematic because of the licensing deals the manufacturers are currently stuck with in order to even supply Windows at a good price.
You know what, in your support for MS Vista you have inadvertently supported my thoughts on Linux. Yes, it's stable too and several distributions can be installed by general users. No complete neophyte will be able to fully install any OS, that is why computers come with the OS pre-installed.
There are a few driver issues with all OS software!
Now, since they are more or less equal, why use the one that cost you big money? Why use the OS that wants to report what you do and prevent you from playing your content?
Yes, I'm saying that if Dell and others shipped computers with some version of Linux pre-installed, it would be a very short time before everyone (nearly) was asking themselves why they should spend big dollars on MS software... assuming we get around/over the MS Tax. That is a problem that probably needs some investigation, perhaps legislative action.
trying to regulate morality. We know that.xxx won't work and kids being resourceful will find a way to get around most blocking software. Its time for parents to be responsible for their children, for them to teach children that they are responsible for their own actions, that society has a set of morals that, for sometimes mind-boggling reasons, we abide by at least in public.
The porn industry is willing to let you block their sites via a tag or two. Blocking software will protect small children when you turn your back to clean the kitchen. Blocking systems would have protected the teacher.
There are many ways to attack this problem, none of them are a silver bullet. The one thing that cannot and should not be regulated is the parents responsibility to protect their own children. It's a big wide nasty world out there. Children will find out about it sooner or later, they can't be protected from it forever.
There is needs for solutions that protect public library systems, solutions that protect work systems, solutions that protect home systems. Even if all these are 100% effective little johnny might still get porn over at his friend's house. Nothing is foolproof and we should not be trying to legislate something to be foolproof or to assign blame when it isn't.
PARENTS need to be paranoid, not just blocking software packages. They should use all that they deem necessary to protect their kids, not what the court deems necessary. The best way to protect them from porn is to educate them, use blocking software, talk to them, use filters, educate them, and did I mention that parents need to talk to and educate their own children rather than rely on t he court to do it for them?
Slashdot Mirror
They seem like a really easy group to work with so far. Much easier than commercial groups we've worked with.... I've got no complaints
Battery technology will experience a sort of Moore's Law with the demand for hybrid and all-electric vehicles. This is just one of the first stories.
I'm always a bit skeptical of such items till I understand how likely it is to cause a fire in my garage while I'm sleeping or when accelerating away from a stop light. New tech is great, but means not a lot till tested in the real world.
With battery technology, the higher the density, the higher the chances of uncontrolled energy release. When it's safe and fairly cheap, then I'll be really interested.
I guess that nobody with VC understands that DRM is simply a VERY expensive, very stressful game of whack-a-mole.
It amazes me that so many people believe that they can do the DRM game and make huge money. Recent news tells me that if the US government is trying to influence other countries to do more about copyright infringement, well then, DRM must not work worth a damn, otherwise there would be no need for US Governmental intervention. With that bit of proof that it won't work, doesn't work, and can't work, it should be relatively obvious to all concerned that the only way that DRM *CAN* work is if governments create laws that make it illegal to not use DRM.
Media and content providers simply have to get on the right bandwagon... DRM isn't it. No matter what fantastically great work they do for any particular DRM scheme it will always end up broken. There is no method that can reasonably ensure secure keys when the unencrypted content has to be present to view it. Sigh, old dogs, new tricks, bad circus experiences....
I wonder how long it will be before the revolts.... Turkey, China, Russia and the US to some extent, I wonder how long it will take till we can say:
In Soviet Russia, Internet censors you
I have a few thoughts about that. Basically, I believe it will come down to a clever set of programs that are used as SAS on the company's intranet. That is to say when a document isn't loading correctly, open a browser and go to the conversion site, click the upload link and have the converted document emailed back to you, or some similar kind of thing. That means only one install of the converters, only one place to worry about it. Anyone can use them.
This is how things should be done anyway, use the intranet that you have. Once that happens MS really is in trouble in this regard. If a company can do batch conversions it would be possible to scan your local drive and then convert every document and replace it with ODF compliant documents.
At that point there is no longer a compatibility issue, just the conversion time as an issue.
I think you missed the point. They have been doing this, but can't use it in court yet as they don't yet have permission to use it.
By getting an ok on this, they will be able to use most of the information that they have collected fraudulently.
for anyone to see that the **AA are purely criminal in nature. What they can't get away with in the courts they are now asking for permission to break the law, or be exempt from it.
Since it would be illegal, never mind impractical, killing off the **AA is not an option. I wish it was easy enough to simply boycott them out of existence. Perhaps this kind of move by the **AA will lead to a boycott that does really hurt them. I hope so.
Shaw cable on the western side of Canada also mangles packets. Check with Vonage to find out how Shaw is trying to cripple their business by dropping calls, packets, or just dropping the network connection for people using Vonage VoIP.
However, it was not illegal for Trunked radio systemms. These are the kinds of radios that you see in police, fire, ambulance, and rescue vehicles. In 1986 I was working on such systems. The included a 300bps control channel, 4wire-2wire adapters (that were difficult to balance) and later full duplex audio.
While it maybe was an is illegal for Ham operators to connect to phone lines, they did so during wars to help sailors make phone calls back home.
Exactly. There is always something that these stories leave out. The only thing that is critically certain is that the RIAA has killed their member's businesses, or is trying really *REALLY* hard to kill them.
Everyone in that business will get hurt in one way or another because the RIAA persecuted its customers. Way to go RIAA...
Aside from bashing them, I feel a bit sad because of the inevitable lull in available good music there will be between the death throws of the current music industry and when it reinvents itself, if it does.
You might also want to stop and have lunch with the guys from NTP before visiting the offices of RIM. Oh, while you're waiting at the airport, try reading GrokLaw for a bit.
If you would like to know about patents elsewhere, I'm sure that Googling EU+Microsoft+Patent will get you enough bedtime reading for the rest of the month.
I'd mod you up if I had points....
I get a list of recalled products on a regular basis and >90% of those are manufactured in China. I don't really think that China is up to the standard that you need to be on par, never mind above par with the rest of the world.
The fact that there are reports of thousands of industrial spies in North America from China backs up what you say. Without political and social reform, China is a boiling pot that is about to spill over and put the fire out beneath it.
Its not about two countries disagreeing on what laws take precedence. It is about the world's governments finding out that pandora's box is wide open. Information is free, and wants more freedom. When there were only TV and radio stations and newspapers, it was fair to regulate access to them to ensure electoral fair play. Well, say hello to the Internet! It is all three of those mediums wrapped in one nice simple package. The rules need to change when the game changes, and the game has definitely changed regardless of whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
Censorship, for whatever reason is not right. Limiting public access by political candidates is one thing, but limiting all other speech related to it is censorship. By posting a video on YouTube, I can tell the world "hey, look what this guy said. Isn't that bad?"
To require that YouTube limit such speech is overbearing and stupid. One reason this is so is because the government trying to do so will have to play whack-a-mole with every other video sharing site as well. The lid to pandora's box can't be closed that easy. Please let's not forget that YouTube is just ONE video sharing site, and they are taking the brunt of the complaints when the problem should be shared by all video sharing sites.... or none. I vote for the latter.
Governments that believe they can limit the content on the Internet are not only fooling themselves, they are showing the entire world that they are both clueless and in need of removal from office.
Yes, governments could simply shut off access to the outside world and censor all Internet activity within their borders, but that would harm their economy and drive the populace to dislike them vehemently.
Pandora's box cannot be closed now.....
"Congress to Fight Piracy with Education Funds"
Why is Congress fighting anything? They are a legislative branch, not a law enforcement branch! Yes, sure, they have to be informed to create appropriate legislative action, but NO NEW LAWS are required.
Federal financial aid to educational institutions should not be messed with to "fight piracy"
If they want to fight piracy, authorize some more money. When new taxes are levied to 'fight piracy' perhaps joe public will pay attention. Additionally, like the war on drugs, this war on piracy is misguided at best.
Copyright laws seem to be working just fine for everyone but the **AA. Why is that? This is what Congress should be doing; asking why the **AA are having so much trouble when other people are not.
Exactly! None of this is new as far as I can figure out.
If it was truly an innovation or AI, it would scan the video/audio clips and recognize Jay Lenno's voice and have that trigger a flag for infringement. Unfortunately I don't think that they have managed to catalog a database of copyrighted works based on such things.
With any luck at all, the **AA will spend billions on this patented claptrap only to find out 2 years from now that there is no way to make it work without landing themselves in even deeper shit with consumers.
how this will be translated into some sort of attempt to regulate craig's list entries to ensure that the children are safe and no copyrights are infringed or something like that. If YouTube is being sued to police the content on their site, shouldn't Craig's List police their site too?
Call me cynical but I just know someone is going to try this lame kind of reasoning to enact more laws we don't need...
the article was a bit 'light' on the details. It would be more enlightening if they had revealed even a ray of technical information. One tenth of the cost? For equal power output?
I read the headline and thought this was going to be a John Candy story...
How long before we see a defection and find out that N.Korea or some other evil empire's government is sponsoring this type of activity. All that malware out there isn't just annoying you with spam, a lot of it is trying industrial espionage.
Hold on there cowboy...
/. doesn't mean that they deserve that money.
I'm pretty sure you won't have much problem finding or getting the same information from F/OSS software!
Just because MS wants to suck the money out of every pocket they can, use monopolistic practices, mafia like business tactics and other ills often mentioned on
If MS really wanted to be nice, they could be. They don't. They *WANT* to keep sucking all the money they can from all the pockets that they can, and will use any and all tactics that they can get away with to continue to do so.
For me, that is just business. There are worse businesses in this world. It's also why I choose F/OSS now without even thinking about what I might lose by not having MS products in my household. Whatever the alternative is, I feel better knowing that I won't be fscked in a couple years to get an upgrade or patch.
Getting paid for doing something is one thing, being forced to stop monopolistic practices is another.
except in this case, the Monopoly is generated by the fact that just about anyone that buys a new computer will have that product installed on it by default. The fact that its incredibly difficult to get a new big name pc without Windows pre-installed is in itself wrong.
I hope that this current situation actually does translate to lower new pc sales for the big name manufacturers, giving them pause to think about shipping with GNU/Linux or no OS at all, and do so at an equitable cost structure. Equitable cost structure is one where computers are cheaper without software pre-installed. Yes, I know that this is problematic because of the licensing deals the manufacturers are currently stuck with in order to even supply Windows at a good price.
You know what, in your support for MS Vista you have inadvertently supported my thoughts on Linux. Yes, it's stable too and several distributions can be installed by general users. No complete neophyte will be able to fully install any OS, that is why computers come with the OS pre-installed.
There are a few driver issues with all OS software!
Now, since they are more or less equal, why use the one that cost you big money? Why use the OS that wants to report what you do and prevent you from playing your content?
Yes, I'm saying that if Dell and others shipped computers with some version of Linux pre-installed, it would be a very short time before everyone (nearly) was asking themselves why they should spend big dollars on MS software... assuming we get around/over the MS Tax. That is a problem that probably needs some investigation, perhaps legislative action.
trying to regulate morality. We know that .xxx won't work and kids being resourceful will find a way to get around most blocking software. Its time for parents to be responsible for their children, for them to teach children that they are responsible for their own actions, that society has a set of morals that, for sometimes mind-boggling reasons, we abide by at least in public.
The porn industry is willing to let you block their sites via a tag or two. Blocking software will protect small children when you turn your back to clean the kitchen. Blocking systems would have protected the teacher.
There are many ways to attack this problem, none of them are a silver bullet. The one thing that cannot and should not be regulated is the parents responsibility to protect their own children. It's a big wide nasty world out there. Children will find out about it sooner or later, they can't be protected from it forever.
There is needs for solutions that protect public library systems, solutions that protect work systems, solutions that protect home systems. Even if all these are 100% effective little johnny might still get porn over at his friend's house. Nothing is foolproof and we should not be trying to legislate something to be foolproof or to assign blame when it isn't.
PARENTS need to be paranoid, not just blocking software packages. They should use all that they deem necessary to protect their kids, not what the court deems necessary. The best way to protect them from porn is to educate them, use blocking software, talk to them, use filters, educate them, and did I mention that parents need to talk to and educate their own children rather than rely on t he court to do it for them?