This is certainly true, but it also means you are limited to the discs you can personally get your hands on. And while maybe you feel good about yourself for helping others by releasing a handful of keys, the effort required to reverse-engineer an entire microchip is maybe not worth it.
Who'd pay for a key that will only be revoked as soon as it is used? And it's not like the problem is the skills to use an SEM - that's just the basic tools. You need to be able to actually take the chip apart layer by layer, scan it, and then the real work starts, trying to reverse engineer it.
Granted, once you've done the reverse engineering once, doing the same thing again is significantly easier, but in the end, all you get is a key that will be revoked as soon as you start using it.
You are being ridiculous and just refusing to concede the point, which was that the original complaint you quoted was essentially, "these people should know that they can't just reference an encyclopedia, they need to actually check multiple source if they want to write an academic text", which is an entirely valid concern.
No, you can most likely not "easily" do it. Usually, this kind of thing takes scanning electron microscopes and multi-million dollar equipment. The keys are not going to be sitting in some externally accessible memory you can just dump.
From TFA: "he wrote that he had 'just read a paper about the relation between structuralism, deconstruction, and postmodernism in which every reference was to the Wikipedia articles on those topics with no awareness that there was any need to read a primary work or even a critical work.'" Yeah, right. We all know there's an objective response to that question.
At least read what you are citing, will you? "A primary work or even a critical work" - the whole point is that when there is not an objective answer, you have to read multiple sources to get the whole picture, and thus you can't just read Wikipedia.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36962.html yeah, somehow i dont think anyone who disagrees should be put on trial for war crimes, literally.
I asked for something somebody had actually done, not some random person's provocative hyperbole. I'm sure I can dig out a blog entry by someone calling himself a "conservative" and saying we should nuke Iraq, but that doesn't make me run around yelling "I DON'T THINK CONVSERVATIVES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KEEP NUKING IRAQ ALL THE TIME!"
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2 165452.ece I also dont think scientists who disagree with the liberal position should be punished with losing their licences.
Are you now calling weathermen on TV "scientists"? Are the newsanchors who talk about politics then "politicians" and the sports reporters "atheletes"?
Scientists don't even have "licenses" that could be revoked!
No, really, I was completely unable to read what you were trying to say. I kind of wanted to respond, but I couldn't, because I did not understand your sentences.
You seem to be confusing the global warming circus in the media with the scientific community. And you also seem to think that because you do not understand it, nobody else does either.
But for some reason global warming tends to send libertarians into full frothing-at-the-mouth hysteria where facts are the last thing to register.
But do tell me, where have "liberals" "surpressed dissenters"? For bonus points, do not refer to hysterical blog entries, but to actual facts.
Do you also get all righteously indignant if an engineer loses his license because he denies newtonian mechanics and starts building bridges based on his own alternate theories?
Neither science nor grammar may be settled, but people still use them. You should take their example, especially as regards grammar. I have no idea what you're trying to say, because your sentences are completely unparsable.
I don't yet fully understand the subset-difference keying system used in AACS, but it's pretty cool.
Me neither, but I suspect that if you really wanted to attack the crypto system, that would be a good place to start, as you don't stand much of a chance against AES.
This fact does change things a bit, but I still expect that if it becomes convenient to extract player keys from players, it will happen, and it will happen far faster than the keys can be revoked.
To tell the truth, I am not entirely sure half of these people even know how the full expression goes, after years of saying nothing but "pot kettle black".
Slashdot Mirror
This is certainly true, but it also means you are limited to the discs you can personally get your hands on. And while maybe you feel good about yourself for helping others by releasing a handful of keys, the effort required to reverse-engineer an entire microchip is maybe not worth it.
Who'd pay for a key that will only be revoked as soon as it is used? And it's not like the problem is the skills to use an SEM - that's just the basic tools. You need to be able to actually take the chip apart layer by layer, scan it, and then the real work starts, trying to reverse engineer it.
Granted, once you've done the reverse engineering once, doing the same thing again is significantly easier, but in the end, all you get is a key that will be revoked as soon as you start using it.
Oh wow, convection! Thanks for pointing that out, I'm sure no planetary scientist had ever thought of that before!
You are being ridiculous and just refusing to concede the point, which was that the original complaint you quoted was essentially, "these people should know that they can't just reference an encyclopedia, they need to actually check multiple source if they want to write an academic text", which is an entirely valid concern.
No, you can most likely not "easily" do it. Usually, this kind of thing takes scanning electron microscopes and multi-million dollar equipment. The keys are not going to be sitting in some externally accessible memory you can just dump.
References for that?
That was a crack of HDCP, not AACS. Try to actually know what you are talking about before accusing others of being wrong.
What, exactly is "this"? Certainly nothing referred to in the parent posts that I can see.
He also probably didn't specify that it should be in English, should use correct grammar, and should be written on paper.
If you're an academic, you're supposed to know certain things without being told.
From TFA: "he wrote that he had 'just read a paper about the relation between structuralism, deconstruction, and postmodernism in which every reference was to the Wikipedia articles on those topics with no awareness that there was any need to read a primary work or even a critical work.'" Yeah, right. We all know there's an objective response to that question.
At least read what you are citing, will you? "A primary work or even a critical work" - the whole point is that when there is not an objective answer, you have to read multiple sources to get the whole picture, and thus you can't just read Wikipedia.
AACS can revoke individual player keys. No need to revoke a whole line of players.
No, you can't. Hardware players use individual key sets and can be individually revoked, and player keys are revoked every six months anyway.
You know, if you look at the photo of that key, it sure looks a lot like it encodes a value very similar to "12345".
Get a grip, man.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36962.html
2 165452.ece
yeah, somehow i dont think anyone who disagrees should be put on trial for war crimes, literally.
I asked for something somebody had actually done, not some random person's provocative hyperbole. I'm sure I can dig out a blog entry by someone calling himself a "conservative" and saying we should nuke Iraq, but that doesn't make me run around yelling "I DON'T THINK CONVSERVATIVES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KEEP NUKING IRAQ ALL THE TIME!"
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article
I also dont think scientists who disagree with the liberal position should be punished with losing their licences.
Are you now calling weathermen on TV "scientists"? Are the newsanchors who talk about politics then "politicians" and the sports reporters "atheletes"?
Scientists don't even have "licenses" that could be revoked!
No, really, I was completely unable to read what you were trying to say. I kind of wanted to respond, but I couldn't, because I did not understand your sentences.
You seem to be confusing the global warming circus in the media with the scientific community. And you also seem to think that because you do not understand it, nobody else does either.
But for some reason global warming tends to send libertarians into full frothing-at-the-mouth hysteria where facts are the last thing to register.
But do tell me, where have "liberals" "surpressed dissenters"? For bonus points, do not refer to hysterical blog entries, but to actual facts.
What, you think they actually read the book before invoking it in debate?
he should lose his licence
Do you also get all righteously indignant if an engineer loses his license because he denies newtonian mechanics and starts building bridges based on his own alternate theories?
Neither science nor grammar may be settled, but people still use them. You should take their example, especially as regards grammar. I have no idea what you're trying to say, because your sentences are completely unparsable.
Pretty much the same thing that happens if a terrorist walks up to the check-in and presses the trigger in his pocket. Why do you ask?
I don't yet fully understand the subset-difference keying system used in AACS, but it's pretty cool.
Me neither, but I suspect that if you really wanted to attack the crypto system, that would be a good place to start, as you don't stand much of a chance against AES.
This fact does change things a bit, but I still expect that if it becomes convenient to extract player keys from players, it will happen, and it will happen far faster than the keys can be revoked.
Pretty big if, though.
That was true of CSS, but AACS fixed this problem. Apparently players have unique keys, so you can revoke them without ruining all the other players.
To tell the truth, I am not entirely sure half of these people even know how the full expression goes, after years of saying nothing but "pot kettle black".
Is that so? Then perhaps you can give me a summary of where I was wrong?