Presumablly each customer will be allocated a v6 prefix just like they are allocated a v4 address now. Combine that with privicy extensions and it will be easy to track to a property but difficult to track beyond that.
It seems to me it would be quite possible to setup the scheme in such a way that it was minimally functional (e.g. you can buy the disk take it home and play it) without a network connection but more options were available if the user had a PSN account and was online.
Whether they will set it up that way is anyones guess.
Afaict most modern games require some form of online activation though the exact form varies.
Valve games and some others require you to register with an online service and tie it to your account. Unless you are prepared to break the TOS and have a seperate account for each game these can't really be resold (or even shared with a family member)
Other games use more conventional activation where you enter the CD key on install and then click activate without associating with any account. The number of activations is likely to be limited*. Since you don't know how many times the previous owner installed the game and you may not know what the real limit is you don't know how far you are from reaching the limit.
* Some games claim unlimited but I don't really believe them. If it was truly unlimted it would be pretty useless as an anti-piracy measure.
AFAIK, Steam also allows you to resell/gift games.
Not really
It is possible to get giftable copies of games on steam either by using the gift option at the checkout or through various promotions. You can freely give or trade these giftable copies between steam accounts.
However if you want to actually play the game you have to convert it from a giftable copy to an entry in your game library. This conversion is a ONE-WAY process. So you cannot gift or sell used games within steam.
You can of course try to sell the whole steam account but that is a violation of the terms of service and is rather inflexible.
The GGP said "Steam has to allow resale of purchases. Don't know when it is coming into effect or if it will proliferate to other regions, but it is a battle fought and lost by them."
Assuming the word them is to be interepreted as valve software (owners of steam) then the link you posted does not match the GPs claim.
Further the article you link says you can sell software but I don't see anything in that article about the vendor having to cooperate and remove technical blocks stopping you using what you bought.
The console vendors haven't really started tighenting down the screws too hard yet. Console games at the moment can still generally be resold, sometimes there is a bit of in-box dlc that is first-purchaser only but afaict it's generally pretty minor at least for single player games.
Having said that I expect console gamers to bitch if the screws are tightened but ultimately suck it up. I resisted steam for years but ultimately I decided that the games were cheap enough that I was prepared to buy two copies (I like to play through games at the same time as my brother) and take the risk of losing them.
That should be "thier" steam account. I initially wrote the sentance in the first person but then changed it to the third person since i've personally never bought a retail copy of a steam game.
That is true if you buy from them directly online.
OTOH if someone goes into a store and buys a copy of one of valve's recent (since HL2) games or a game from another publisher that has bought deeply into steam then they have a physical copy and yet the only way they can use it is to permanently tie it to my steam account.
IIRC initially if you installed from the disc it insisted that you both have the disc in the drive and were connected to steam (though if you installed from the internet they didn't even if your "license" originally came with a disc). Dunno if they changed that in an update.
Honestly curious why this is set up this way, it seems so inefficient and insecure.
I remember watching a video on it somewhere and iirc at the time the main concern when https was introduced was evesdropping and protection against MITM attacks was very much an afterthought.
By the time everyone realised that the model of having CAs whose financial interests are to issue a cert without asking too many questions and any one of which could declare a server trusted to serve content for a url was fundamentally broken it was too late to do much about it:(
It probably comes down to the individual bank, from what i've read here in the UK some banks are happy to deal with large quantities of coinage (provided it's properly presented*) while others are not so happy about it. Apparently some banks will even exchange coins for banknotes for people who aren't their customer.
Legal tender only defines what a creditor must accept which is usually a subset of what they will accept.
*Here in the Uk we bag coins, I believe Americans roll theirs.
dunno what it's like where you live but here in the UK many small retailers and food outlets either insist on cash for small transactions, put a surcharge on small card transaction or don't take cards at all.
Sure you can put all your £10+ and most of your £5 transactions on the card (I personally don't because I find chip and pin more hassle than paying cash) but unless you are the kind of person who never grabs a drink or snack on the go it's difficult to avoid carrying at least some cash.
BS the size of the versions released to consumers will remain limited by the capacity of the media it is on and in any case the pirates can always recompress.
Afaict what this sort of thing is really about is flexibility. Want if they want to zoom in on something? or run something in slow motion? even remove something from a scene? it's much much cheaper if they can reprocess the existing data than if they have to re-shoot the scene. Compression artifacts that are invisible to the human eye during normal playback of a peice of video can cause big issues once someone starts messing with the footage. Also interframe compression turns even basic temporal editing into a lossy process.
So the solution is ideally to avoid compression at all during production and if they can't avoid it to stick to intraframe compression only.
Which afaict puts it in the same ballpark as dual core atom based machines and if you think 2GB is enough to last the life of the machine and you don't need lots of computing power on the go it may be a nice device for you.
OTOH If computing power is your thing and you don't care too much about size and weight you will be much better off with a sandy/ivy celeron from the regular mobile (not ultra mobile) range.
A full retail copy of windows 7 ultimate can be had about £170 (including VAT as is normal when talking about end user prices in the UK).
But the price drops a bit as you go down the editions and drops more if you are prepared to buy "system builder" rather than "retail" I'm not sure if you are really supposed to use "system builder" copies for machines you build for yourself (AIUI they are really meant for PCs you build and sell) but afaict pretty much all hobbyists do. Home preumium OEM can be had for arround £73 (again including VAT)
Afaict no public numbers are available on what the big brands pay for windows but the rumours are it's much less than the "system builders" pay.
Yeah, he screwed up his example, i'm pretty sure it would compile if he set s to null explicitly.
Despite his mistake though his point stands, the problem of you (or a library you use) using null to represent "not known", "not present", "not found" or whatever and then passing the variable to a routine that assumes it will not be null impacts many languages that are far more "modern" than C.
Is it too much to ask that when writing english people follow the conventions used in english rather than borrowing stuff from their own language that has a different meaning in english leaving us to guess whether they meant the meaning from their own language or the meaning from english? (yes in this case it was easy to guess) Is it too much to ask that when someone is too clueless/lazy to do that the editors fix it?
Afaict google doesn't follow their own copyright rules unless the copyright holder forces them to.
There is LOADS of stuff on youtube that is almost certainly infringing. If the copyright holder wanted to upload is they almost certainly wouldn't upload a crappy vhs recording or cam copy (unless that was the only version in existence) and they almost certainly would use a user account that reflects their brand. Nevertheless there is no report category for normal users to report probable copyright infringement.
Compare this to the policies of sites like wikipedia that take copyright violation reports seriously REGARDLESS of whether they come from the original copyright holder or not.
MMM, companies using the term "refurbished" when they have done little more than give the item a quick clean and a very brief test (if that) seems to be an endemic problem.
although with all the chaos around with armN means for various N, who knows.
mmm, AIUI aarch64 has NO asm level compatibility with 32-bit arm architectures so having build systems treat it as a completely unknown architecture (and hence using the generic C implementations) rather than treating it as a variant of arm (and hence trying to use arm assembler routines and failing to build because of it) is probablly a good thing
.ssh/authorized_keys is only writable by the user if you decide it should be. "chown root:root/home//.ssh/authorized_keys; chmod 755/home//.ssh/authorized_keys" and voila, only root can update your authorized_keys file.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. If you do that then the user can't edit the file in place but they can still remove and recreate it. To stop a user changing stuff in their home directory you would have to take away their ownership of it which is likely to break a lot of stuff.
Another solution is to change the location of the authorized_keys files in/etc/ssh/sshd_config (or wherever your distro stores the settings) to something outside their home folder.
This would be the way to go if you want to stop users adding keys themselves.
Really having a ssh key with no passphrase is much the same as having a copy of your password sitting in a file on your computer. The only way to try and prevent it is invasive scans of all data stored on the client computer and even then you may well miss it if the user obfuscates it slightly.
ssh can enable/disable passwords depending on the source address put something like
Match Address 192.168.0.0/16
PasswordAuthentication yes
At the end of your config file (unfortunately match blocks have to go at the end of the config file because there is no way to end a match block other than starting a new one).
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't really make much difference.
Presumablly each customer will be allocated a v6 prefix just like they are allocated a v4 address now. Combine that with privicy extensions and it will be easy to track to a property but difficult to track beyond that.
It seems to me it would be quite possible to setup the scheme in such a way that it was minimally functional (e.g. you can buy the disk take it home and play it) without a network connection but more options were available if the user had a PSN account and was online.
Whether they will set it up that way is anyones guess.
Afaict most modern games require some form of online activation though the exact form varies.
Valve games and some others require you to register with an online service and tie it to your account. Unless you are prepared to break the TOS and have a seperate account for each game these can't really be resold (or even shared with a family member)
Other games use more conventional activation where you enter the CD key on install and then click activate without associating with any account. The number of activations is likely to be limited*. Since you don't know how many times the previous owner installed the game and you may not know what the real limit is you don't know how far you are from reaching the limit.
* Some games claim unlimited but I don't really believe them. If it was truly unlimted it would be pretty useless as an anti-piracy measure.
AFAIK, Steam also allows you to resell/gift games.
Not really
It is possible to get giftable copies of games on steam either by using the gift option at the checkout or through various promotions. You can freely give or trade these giftable copies between steam accounts.
However if you want to actually play the game you have to convert it from a giftable copy to an entry in your game library. This conversion is a ONE-WAY process. So you cannot gift or sell used games within steam.
You can of course try to sell the whole steam account but that is a violation of the terms of service and is rather inflexible.
The GGP said "Steam has to allow resale of purchases. Don't know when it is coming into effect or if it will proliferate to other regions, but it is a battle fought and lost by them."
Assuming the word them is to be interepreted as valve software (owners of steam) then the link you posted does not match the GPs claim.
Further the article you link says you can sell software but I don't see anything in that article about the vendor having to cooperate and remove technical blocks stopping you using what you bought.
The console vendors haven't really started tighenting down the screws too hard yet. Console games at the moment can still generally be resold, sometimes there is a bit of in-box dlc that is first-purchaser only but afaict it's generally pretty minor at least for single player games.
Having said that I expect console gamers to bitch if the screws are tightened but ultimately suck it up. I resisted steam for years but ultimately I decided that the games were cheap enough that I was prepared to buy two copies (I like to play through games at the same time as my brother) and take the risk of losing them.
Really? PC game vendors have been implementing anti-resale measures for years. Console vendors are just starting to implement them.
permanently tie it to my steam account.
That should be "thier" steam account. I initially wrote the sentance in the first person but then changed it to the third person since i've personally never bought a retail copy of a steam game.
Steam gives you no physical media
That is true if you buy from them directly online.
OTOH if someone goes into a store and buys a copy of one of valve's recent (since HL2) games or a game from another publisher that has bought deeply into steam then they have a physical copy and yet the only way they can use it is to permanently tie it to my steam account.
IIRC initially if you installed from the disc it insisted that you both have the disc in the drive and were connected to steam (though if you installed from the internet they didn't even if your "license" originally came with a disc). Dunno if they changed that in an update.
Honestly curious why this is set up this way, it seems so inefficient and insecure.
I remember watching a video on it somewhere and iirc at the time the main concern when https was introduced was evesdropping and protection against MITM attacks was very much an afterthought.
By the time everyone realised that the model of having CAs whose financial interests are to issue a cert without asking too many questions and any one of which could declare a server trusted to serve content for a url was fundamentally broken it was too late to do much about it :(
If you have a choice as to whether to accept something as payment for a debt, that is by definition no longer legal tender.
AIUI generaly cash transactions in a store do not involve a debt to the store and therefore legal tender is not directly relevant.
It probably comes down to the individual bank, from what i've read here in the UK some banks are happy to deal with large quantities of coinage (provided it's properly presented*) while others are not so happy about it. Apparently some banks will even exchange coins for banknotes for people who aren't their customer.
Legal tender only defines what a creditor must accept which is usually a subset of what they will accept.
*Here in the Uk we bag coins, I believe Americans roll theirs.
dunno what it's like where you live but here in the UK many small retailers and food outlets either insist on cash for small transactions, put a surcharge on small card transaction or don't take cards at all.
Sure you can put all your £10+ and most of your £5 transactions on the card (I personally don't because I find chip and pin more hassle than paying cash) but unless you are the kind of person who never grabs a drink or snack on the go it's difficult to avoid carrying at least some cash.
BS the size of the versions released to consumers will remain limited by the capacity of the media it is on and in any case the pirates can always recompress.
Afaict what this sort of thing is really about is flexibility. Want if they want to zoom in on something? or run something in slow motion? even remove something from a scene? it's much much cheaper if they can reprocess the existing data than if they have to re-shoot the scene. Compression artifacts that are invisible to the human eye during normal playback of a peice of video can cause big issues once someone starts messing with the footage. Also interframe compression turns even basic temporal editing into a lossy process.
So the solution is ideally to avoid compression at all during production and if they can't avoid it to stick to intraframe compression only.
It's only a dual core (though it is a cortex a15)
Which afaict puts it in the same ballpark as dual core atom based machines and if you think 2GB is enough to last the life of the machine and you don't need lots of computing power on the go it may be a nice device for you.
OTOH If computing power is your thing and you don't care too much about size and weight you will be much better off with a sandy/ivy celeron from the regular mobile (not ultra mobile) range.
Windows 7/8/whatever costs an extra £200
A full retail copy of windows 7 ultimate can be had about £170 (including VAT as is normal when talking about end user prices in the UK).
But the price drops a bit as you go down the editions and drops more if you are prepared to buy "system builder" rather than "retail" I'm not sure if you are really supposed to use "system builder" copies for machines you build for yourself (AIUI they are really meant for PCs you build and sell) but afaict pretty much all hobbyists do. Home preumium OEM can be had for arround £73 (again including VAT)
Afaict no public numbers are available on what the big brands pay for windows but the rumours are it's much less than the "system builders" pay.
Upgrade their existing desktops and infrastructure to a version that will still be getting security updates in a couple of years time?
Yeah, he screwed up his example, i'm pretty sure it would compile if he set s to null explicitly.
Despite his mistake though his point stands, the problem of you (or a library you use) using null to represent "not known", "not present", "not found" or whatever and then passing the variable to a routine that assumes it will not be null impacts many languages that are far more "modern" than C.
Is it too much to ask that when writing english people follow the conventions used in english rather than borrowing stuff from their own language that has a different meaning in english leaving us to guess whether they meant the meaning from their own language or the meaning from english? (yes in this case it was easy to guess)
Is it too much to ask that when someone is too clueless/lazy to do that the editors fix it?
I guess the answer here at /. is yes :(
Afaict google doesn't follow their own copyright rules unless the copyright holder forces them to.
There is LOADS of stuff on youtube that is almost certainly infringing. If the copyright holder wanted to upload is they almost certainly wouldn't upload a crappy vhs recording or cam copy (unless that was the only version in existence) and they almost certainly would use a user account that reflects their brand. Nevertheless there is no report category for normal users to report probable copyright infringement.
Compare this to the policies of sites like wikipedia that take copyright violation reports seriously REGARDLESS of whether they come from the original copyright holder or not.
MMM, companies using the term "refurbished" when they have done little more than give the item a quick clean and a very brief test (if that) seems to be an endemic problem.
although with all the chaos around with armN means for various N, who knows.
mmm, AIUI aarch64 has NO asm level compatibility with 32-bit arm architectures so having build systems treat it as a completely unknown architecture (and hence using the generic C implementations) rather than treating it as a variant of arm (and hence trying to use arm assembler routines and failing to build because of it) is probablly a good thing
.ssh/authorized_keys is only writable by the user if you decide it should be. "chown root:root /home//.ssh/authorized_keys; chmod 755 /home//.ssh/authorized_keys" and voila, only root can update your authorized_keys file.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. If you do that then the user can't edit the file in place but they can still remove and recreate it. To stop a user changing stuff in their home directory you would have to take away their ownership of it which is likely to break a lot of stuff.
Another solution is to change the location of the authorized_keys files in /etc/ssh/sshd_config (or wherever your distro stores the settings) to something outside their home folder.
This would be the way to go if you want to stop users adding keys themselves.
Really having a ssh key with no passphrase is much the same as having a copy of your password sitting in a file on your computer. The only way to try and prevent it is invasive scans of all data stored on the client computer and even then you may well miss it if the user obfuscates it slightly.
ssh can enable/disable passwords depending on the source address put something like
Match Address 192.168.0.0/16
PasswordAuthentication yes
At the end of your config file (unfortunately match blocks have to go at the end of the config file because there is no way to end a match block other than starting a new one).