No, you are seeing the development process never end. Just try and count the number of projects, even highly popular projects, that are still stuck in pre-1.0 state because the developers can not be bothered to set a specific goal and work to polish the product up for release, but instead just want to do the fun work of adding new things forever.
But any update will only be a temporary fix. ANY software player will have to put their key in memory at some point while it's running, the new key will be found quickly. And the keys for almost all software players will be found.
The key will have to be in memory, but there is no reason for it to be unobfuscated. Any kind of simple obfuscation will stop the kind of attack used here. Sure, somebody can start reverse engineering the code to work out the obfuscation, but that takes a lot more skill and time than what these people have spent. It cuts down the number of people who can and are willing to do the work considerably.
Sorry, I do not live in your fucked-up country. I live in a country which largely follows "my ideals" and which is prospering. If you were honest with yourself, you'd have to try and find a better explanation for your problem than easy scapegoats.
Like, I dunno, extreme social inequalities driving people into crime? A completely ineffective "war on drugs" that is doing nothing to curb the problem, but instead gives more power to criminals and fills up the jails? And so on, and so forth.
No, you're right, let's beat up kids instead, that'll fix it.
Now, I agree entirely that being popular is nowhere near reason enough to be called great, and indeed PHP is a festering boil upon the internet, but I'd also argue that in order to be called "one of the greatest programming languages", a language really needs to be in actual use by a significant number of people.
(a) I'm willing to bet that there's a manufacturer out there lazy enough to give the same key to each player.
Very doubtful. There are strict rules for the use of AACS technology. Nobody is dumb enough to threaten their license and their product line by not following them.
(b) I don't see any mention of a contract being associated with ownership of an HDDVD player that grants permission to some authority to disable it. Therefore, if my player is disabled, will they be offering to replace it? Or will I have to sue them?
Your player will not be disabled. It will work just as well as it always has. It's just that no new discs will be made that can play on it. Since the keys are individual, the only reason, apart from a mistake, that this would happen is because you've released the keys from your player. In the case of a mistake, I'm sure you could argue yourself into getting a new player.
Game consoles are a completely different problem. They usually do not encrypt data on the disc. They just want the discs verified as originals and not copies. And even that hasn't been cracked, as nobody can create a disc that boots and runs on any of the current consoles without modifying the hardware.
1.
1. A form of government: a fascist regime.
2. A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.
2. A prevailing social system or pattern.
3. The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
4. A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen.
Canada does not have "a regulated system" of copyright?
If you consider 10 seconds and a few keystrokes far too inconvenient to warrant sharing your valuable expertise then I would have to say "Yes." You obviously feel that it is important enough for/.
I have never seen a site where registration required "10 seconds and a few keystrokes". Even so, it's a needless barrier to entry.
And I don't even know why I have a Slashdot account, I found it in an old mail archive with no memory of ever creating the account. Maybe I was drunk? Either way, Slashdot may claim to support anonymous posting but in practice it is impossible to have a discussion on Slashdot without an account to track discussions.
And here's a thought back to you: How do you verify that the expert is in fact the expert you think they are if you don't have them authenticate.
Because they post things that are verifably correct and well-written? The same way you do with people who do with people who have accounts?
Most people will make one or two edits to Wikipedia, ever. There's no audit trail in either case. Those who find it amusing will no doubt create accounts for themselves after a while, for convenience. But that convenience comes only after you've used the site for a while and gotten into the system. Requiring you to register immediately gives no benefit to either the user or the site.
Obviously from the discussion in this thread people feel that Wikipedia is a valuable resource and there is a problem with vandalism. Heck they're only asking you to put your key in the lock when you want to change things.
So if I want to mess around with people on the internet, I will never, ever create an account?
If you're too inconvenienced with having to log into Wikipedia to contribute, then the community is probably better off without you.
So if I am a person who actually has things to do with his time, Wikipedia is better off without me?
Here's a thought for you: People who want to vandalise wikipedia are generally bored internet lolsters, who have tons of free time and are bored, and will create an account if they have to. People who are actual experts in a field actually have things to do with their time, and if they are faced with useless tasks before being allowed to contribute, they more likely than not will not bother, and will do something else constructive instead.
Slashdot Mirror
You're seeing the development process
No, you are seeing the development process never end. Just try and count the number of projects, even highly popular projects, that are still stuck in pre-1.0 state because the developers can not be bothered to set a specific goal and work to polish the product up for release, but instead just want to do the fun work of adding new things forever.
Breaking a major hardware player is a big deal
Nope. Hardware players can be individually revoked.
But any update will only be a temporary fix. ANY software player will have to put their key in memory at some point while it's running, the new key will be found quickly. And the keys for almost all software players will be found.
The key will have to be in memory, but there is no reason for it to be unobfuscated. Any kind of simple obfuscation will stop the kind of attack used here. Sure, somebody can start reverse engineering the code to work out the obfuscation, but that takes a lot more skill and time than what these people have spent. It cuts down the number of people who can and are willing to do the work considerably.
So you have a completely broken machine. Obviously this means Windows sucks. Good job with the logic.
Yes, let's argue based on a single extreme example of a person who is obviously psychologically unbalanced. Great idea.
Ah yes , the standard issue "you're a racist" snipe...
You get that a lot, then?
He was only talking about Islam in Spain, genius.
Sorry, I do not live in your fucked-up country. I live in a country which largely follows "my ideals" and which is prospering. If you were honest with yourself, you'd have to try and find a better explanation for your problem than easy scapegoats.
Like, I dunno, extreme social inequalities driving people into crime? A completely ineffective "war on drugs" that is doing nothing to curb the problem, but instead gives more power to criminals and fills up the jails? And so on, and so forth.
No, you're right, let's beat up kids instead, that'll fix it.
Since XP, Windows has booted significantly faster than any Linux machine I've seen.
It has two of them, and nobody but Unix beards use them.
Believe it or not the boy would be different.
After being abused and mistreated for years by people he hated and looked down on, with his strong disregard for other humans?
Yeah, he'd probably have killed a handful of them.
The most recent poll indicated that something like a million people would rather serve a long prison sentence than submit to the ID scheme.
You actually believe that?
Now, I agree entirely that being popular is nowhere near reason enough to be called great, and indeed PHP is a festering boil upon the internet, but I'd also argue that in order to be called "one of the greatest programming languages", a language really needs to be in actual use by a significant number of people.
My most sincere condolences to you and your fellows in your suffering.
Nice list of languages nobody uses there.
Facts cannot be unfortunate in your world?
At least it uses more power!
So you think any idea that is opposed by 0.05% of the population should never be allowed?
This has been today's lesson in believing what you read on Slashdot.
There never was such a word as "bigit". Thus ends today's lessons in believing what you read on Slashdot.
(a) I'm willing to bet that there's a manufacturer out there lazy enough to give the same key to each player.
Very doubtful. There are strict rules for the use of AACS technology. Nobody is dumb enough to threaten their license and their product line by not following them.
(b) I don't see any mention of a contract being associated with ownership of an HDDVD player that grants permission to some authority to disable it. Therefore, if my player is disabled, will they be offering to replace it? Or will I have to sue them?
Your player will not be disabled. It will work just as well as it always has. It's just that no new discs will be made that can play on it. Since the keys are individual, the only reason, apart from a mistake, that this would happen is because you've released the keys from your player. In the case of a mistake, I'm sure you could argue yourself into getting a new player.
Game consoles are a completely different problem. They usually do not encrypt data on the disc. They just want the discs verified as originals and not copies. And even that hasn't been cracked, as nobody can create a disc that boots and runs on any of the current consoles without modifying the hardware.
regime also régime (r-zhm', r-) pronunciation
n.
1.
1. A form of government: a fascist regime.
2. A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.
2. A prevailing social system or pattern.
3. The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
4. A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen.
Canada does not have "a regulated system" of copyright?
If you consider 10 seconds and a few keystrokes far too inconvenient to warrant sharing your valuable expertise then I would have to say "Yes." You obviously feel that it is important enough for /.
I have never seen a site where registration required "10 seconds and a few keystrokes". Even so, it's a needless barrier to entry.
And I don't even know why I have a Slashdot account, I found it in an old mail archive with no memory of ever creating the account. Maybe I was drunk? Either way, Slashdot may claim to support anonymous posting but in practice it is impossible to have a discussion on Slashdot without an account to track discussions.
And here's a thought back to you: How do you verify that the expert is in fact the expert you think they are if you don't have them authenticate.
Because they post things that are verifably correct and well-written? The same way you do with people who do with people who have accounts?
Most people will make one or two edits to Wikipedia, ever. There's no audit trail in either case. Those who find it amusing will no doubt create accounts for themselves after a while, for convenience. But that convenience comes only after you've used the site for a while and gotten into the system. Requiring you to register immediately gives no benefit to either the user or the site.
Obviously from the discussion in this thread people feel that Wikipedia is a valuable resource and there is a problem with vandalism. Heck they're only asking you to put your key in the lock when you want to change things.
So if I want to mess around with people on the internet, I will never, ever create an account?
If you're too inconvenienced with having to log into Wikipedia to contribute, then the community is probably better off without you.
So if I am a person who actually has things to do with his time, Wikipedia is better off without me?
Here's a thought for you: People who want to vandalise wikipedia are generally bored internet lolsters, who have tons of free time and are bored, and will create an account if they have to. People who are actual experts in a field actually have things to do with their time, and if they are faced with useless tasks before being allowed to contribute, they more likely than not will not bother, and will do something else constructive instead.