Allowing format shifting implies the ability to shift it to an unlocked format (allowing format shifting to locked formats doesn't count as format shifting). Allow that and you might as well not bother with DRM at all. For that reason, the whole question is moot.
There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack.
What kind of bullshit fear-mongering is this? There was no suggestion that it was caused by Martian attack or canabalism in the British Navy either. Why not mention that?
Especially if you want to play videos in a format people actually use (divx).
Hilarious.
The only digital video format that could reasonably be described as a format "people" (i.e., a non-trivially-small fraction of them) use would probably be MPEG2 (as in ATSC & DVD). After that probably comes all of the flash being watched by YouTubers.
The most effective cure for the DLP Rainbow effect mentioned so far have been spiraled color wheels instead of sectored ones. With spiral wheels, you effectively display more than one color on the screen at the same time (the border between two colors sweeps downwards or upwards through the picture as the wheel spins) and switch between the colors more frequently, both of which serve to make perception of the effect far more unlikely, while not increasing the mechanical complexity of the light engine at all.
Although we do have a wall-mounted LCD screen in the bedroom, I am much happier overall with the DLP set in the living room.
Oh, and think LCD's don't burn? Think again. After only a year hooked up to our TiVo, you can see the channel banner when you put a 50% gray field on the screen.
You forgot a step before this one: Somebody like "DVD Jon" writes a patch for the parallels or other VM software that allows *any* software to run.
No, that was (effectivey) step 2.
The patch that when from the version before step 2 to the version after would be what Microsoft would say was an anti-circumvention device.
I understand your point - If parallels merely emulated the hardware completely, there wouldn't be any problem, but they don't. And as soon as it's clear that they're patching it to work around a restriction Microsoft has put in place on the OS, the DMCA comes into play.
ASCAP not too long ago went after a restaurant owner who every once in a while would get coaxed by the customers into going over to the piano and belting out a tune. Since they weren't his own, and they were public performances, he either had to pay up or stop doing it.
Disney has gone after day care centers that have encouraged parents to send a DVD along with their child for sharing.
So this story isn't even the most agredious example of this kind of copyright enforcement available.
As a nation, we would likely have more people alive today than we do had we responded to the WTC attack by literally doing nothing at all (on a domestic level).
Cranking up airport security and raising costs has resulted in shifting more poeople from airplane travel to using roads or rails, all of which are less safe per passenger-mile.
Thanks for the informative reply. I hope the mods are kind to you. One little thing though:
Think about that and remember this is compressing Uranium metal
Aren't implosion bombs usually made with Plutonium? They had to resort to that because getting enough Uranium together for more than one gun style bomb was going to take far too long, and you can't use the gun style with Plutonium because it will destroy itself before becoming sufficiently critical for good yield.
As you said, the gun style would be much easier. but only if you were able to come up with a bunch of refined Uranium.
Seems to me like the hard part about engineering an implosion bomb is, well, getting the implosion right. Couldn't you just trial-and-error that with lead stand-ins for the Plutonium for a while until you got it right? I mean, isn't that at least partly what the Manhattan Project did? Is the physics of the "atomic" part of an atomic bomb really that unknown anymore? What am I missing?
Heise Security has a report about new Proof of Concept virus for Mac entitled as OSX.Macarena by AV vendor Symantec.
The wording implies that the virus itself was written by "AV vendor Symantec," where I'm bloody sure that the intent was to say that the report was by Symantec.
Many commenters have fallen into this trap and have lambasted Symantec for authoring proof-of-concept viruses in order to boost sales of their AV product.
That's not to say that they don't engage in FUD, or that it's not possible that they have gone further. But a poorly worded story summary is certainly not proof.
I heard once upon a time that there was an airline that had none of these paper documents. They worked the same way the trains used to work. You'd board the plane, pick a seat, and once you were up in the air, they'd come by row by row and collect the airfare and give you a receipt.
I've spent 10 minutes googling and I can't find it, unfortunately.
(Ever try taking XP back to Staples and saying you didn't agree with the EULA?)
Yes (see the part near the end about "Window Refund Day").
Post Sale Agreements should be illegal.
Orthagonal to the question of click-through-licensing, which is what we're really talking about. HOWEVER, I do think that if a software vendor does not fully respect the requirements to cancel the sale if the EULA is refused, that then the EULA should be regarded as void. Microsoft defers to the hardware vendors and they defer back to Microsoft, so the whole thing is a catch-22. On those grounds, I would think that a class action lawyer would have a field day if only he could find a large enough class to represent.
True, but irrelevant. The GP is correct. You cannot buy a copy of Panther for x86, except with a new mac. As a sibling poster said, this situation will change when Leopard is released, but for now everyone running OSX x86 other than on Apple hardware has pinched it. That means that discussions about the legality of hacking it are moot until then.
Slashdot Mirror
Allowing format shifting implies the ability to shift it to an unlocked format (allowing format shifting to locked formats doesn't count as format shifting). Allow that and you might as well not bother with DRM at all. For that reason, the whole question is moot.
What kind of bullshit fear-mongering is this? There was no suggestion that it was caused by Martian attack or canabalism in the British Navy either. Why not mention that?
Hilarious.
The only digital video format that could reasonably be described as a format "people" (i.e., a non-trivially-small fraction of them) use would probably be MPEG2 (as in ATSC & DVD). After that probably comes all of the flash being watched by YouTubers.
The most effective cure for the DLP Rainbow effect mentioned so far have been spiraled color wheels instead of sectored ones. With spiral wheels, you effectively display more than one color on the screen at the same time (the border between two colors sweeps downwards or upwards through the picture as the wheel spins) and switch between the colors more frequently, both of which serve to make perception of the effect far more unlikely, while not increasing the mechanical complexity of the light engine at all.
Although we do have a wall-mounted LCD screen in the bedroom, I am much happier overall with the DLP set in the living room.
Oh, and think LCD's don't burn? Think again. After only a year hooked up to our TiVo, you can see the channel banner when you put a 50% gray field on the screen.
So he is just trying to imply that the only thing that fits the definition of a PC OS is Windows. I call Shenanigans.
Followed by your sig...
All theory is gray
Priceless.
No, that was (effectivey) step 2.
The patch that when from the version before step 2 to the version after would be what Microsoft would say was an anti-circumvention device.
I understand your point - If parallels merely emulated the hardware completely, there wouldn't be any problem, but they don't. And as soon as it's clear that they're patching it to work around a restriction Microsoft has put in place on the OS, the DMCA comes into play.
You missed the point. The law those police officers would be enforcing would be the DMCA. Follow along:
1. Microsoft writes code that detects that Windows is running in a VM.
2. Parallels writes code that works-around the VM test in Windows.
3. Microsoft has the police arrest Parallels' development staff for writing code that circumvents an "effective access control mechanism."
Either that scenario happens, or the scenario stops with step 1, in which case Microsoft wins anyway.
So can regular ones. Your point?
Here's one (actually, two: the 30" and the 23" one), and another, and another.
I'd say that HD capable computer monitors are not all that difficult to find.
I'm glad to see that Microsoft is working on the really important stuff, now that all their security problems are all solved.
ASCAP not too long ago went after a restaurant owner who every once in a while would get coaxed by the customers into going over to the piano and belting out a tune. Since they weren't his own, and they were public performances, he either had to pay up or stop doing it.
Disney has gone after day care centers that have encouraged parents to send a DVD along with their child for sharing.
So this story isn't even the most agredious example of this kind of copyright enforcement available.
As a nation, we would likely have more people alive today than we do had we responded to the WTC attack by literally doing nothing at all (on a domestic level).
Cranking up airport security and raising costs has resulted in shifting more poeople from airplane travel to using roads or rails, all of which are less safe per passenger-mile.
Thanks for the informative reply. I hope the mods are kind to you. One little thing though:
Think about that and remember this is compressing Uranium metal
Aren't implosion bombs usually made with Plutonium? They had to resort to that because getting enough Uranium together for more than one gun style bomb was going to take far too long, and you can't use the gun style with Plutonium because it will destroy itself before becoming sufficiently critical for good yield.
As you said, the gun style would be much easier. but only if you were able to come up with a bunch of refined Uranium.
If you think that it's more likely that Symantec wrote the virus than that they simply wrote a report on the virus, then there's no talking to you.
Seems to me like the hard part about engineering an implosion bomb is, well, getting the implosion right. Couldn't you just trial-and-error that with lead stand-ins for the Plutonium for a while until you got it right? I mean, isn't that at least partly what the Manhattan Project did? Is the physics of the "atomic" part of an atomic bomb really that unknown anymore? What am I missing?
The wording implies that the virus itself was written by "AV vendor Symantec," where I'm bloody sure that the intent was to say that the report was by Symantec.
Many commenters have fallen into this trap and have lambasted Symantec for authoring proof-of-concept viruses in order to boost sales of their AV product.
That's not to say that they don't engage in FUD, or that it's not possible that they have gone further. But a poorly worded story summary is certainly not proof.
My last computer came with something other than IE pre-installed.
I heard once upon a time that there was an airline that had none of these paper documents. They worked the same way the trains used to work. You'd board the plane, pick a seat, and once you were up in the air, they'd come by row by row and collect the airfare and give you a receipt.
I've spent 10 minutes googling and I can't find it, unfortunately.
Yes (see the part near the end about "Window Refund Day").
Post Sale Agreements should be illegal.
Orthagonal to the question of click-through-licensing, which is what we're really talking about. HOWEVER, I do think that if a software vendor does not fully respect the requirements to cancel the sale if the EULA is refused, that then the EULA should be regarded as void. Microsoft defers to the hardware vendors and they defer back to Microsoft, so the whole thing is a catch-22. On those grounds, I would think that a class action lawyer would have a field day if only he could find a large enough class to represent.
True, but irrelevant. The GP is correct. You cannot buy a copy of Panther for x86, except with a new mac. As a sibling poster said, this situation will change when Leopard is released, but for now everyone running OSX x86 other than on Apple hardware has pinched it. That means that discussions about the legality of hacking it are moot until then.
Fund the study, and I'll bet they'll say it for you.
FUD patrol on call.
"almost?"