Which I think the developers know and don't mind much at all.
If I play it on a console I don't get malware on my PC.
I didn't buy Starcraft 2 because of the whole "you don't own it" issue.
I try not to buy games on Steam because the more games you buy on Steam, the more you stand to lose if Valve decides to cut your account off. If they cut you off because of a dispute over one game, you lose the ability to run all the games you "own". At least with other DRM schemes I don't stand to lose everything over one game, I might lose it but I can still run my other games.
How would the open source community solve this problem?
What version of device authentication doesn't involve having a critical secret key on the device being authenticated? Such a secret is the very basis upon which authentication works.
The only possible solution to this that I know if is different hardware that guards the key better and I don't know that the open source community is going to provide that.
Hotz released his hypervisor hack for PS3 and then Sony removed the ability to run other OSes in response.
Hotz then released another hack later which brought the ability to run other OSes back.
Hotz did not just act to restore something Sony had removed, Hotz acted first by breaking out of the penalty box that other OSes ran in. You may agree or disagree with breaking out of the penalty box, but either way, that was the first punch that started the battle between Hotz and Sony, not Sony removing the capability to run other OSes.
Radiosity being a 90s computer graphics term for calculation how radiation (heat and light) hit surfaces and are absorbed or re-emitted by them. It came from earlier studies on this not relating to computer graphics.
You can render your radiosity results using phong shading or other shading techniques.
Is this the same Microsoft that settled with Immersion to give them cash to sue Sony in court over vibrating controllers with the proviso that MS would get paid from any settlement with Sony?
If you're looking for a non-evil company, Microsoft isn't it.
I do think Sony's lawsuit is pointless and stupid. Microsoft is smarter to avoid all this. But that's not a question of evil/non-evil, it's just wiser or less wise.
Sorry, I don't agree. The true bad idea is for your browser to accept certs from 650 different possible companies as being valid for google.com when in reality most of them never really could be. Virtually all of the time, the only valid cert today is the same one it was yesterday. And even when it does legitimately change, it's not going to be to "Certigna", "CertNomis", "Belgium Root CA", "Juur-SK" or "Baltimore CyberTrust Root". So even if the user has a 90% chance of clicking the wrong button, the odds still rise. And as I mentioned before, the real point of putting this message up isn't protecting them, it's that a spoof like this will be noticed by the internet community as a whole because these questions will start coming up.
Right now, if this spoof happened, how long would it take before someone noticed they are trusting a bogus Certigna cert when Google's certs had previously (and still legitimately) come from Thawte?
It's not about making things perfect. It's about making things better.
The system would warn you of the switch and you have to decide whether to believe Google switched or whether this is a fake.
Like I said, I know that most people wouldn't answer the question (trust or not) correctly and thus wouldn't personally be protected, but the presence of this message on many people's screens will as a whole at least make sure the impersonations didn't go unnoticed for long.
Why, if Google's certs come from Thawte, is it that big a problem of Comodo issues a bogus google.com cert?
Browsers should remember that Google's certs last came from Thawte (a particular root cert) and today, all of a sudden, it is being verified by another company. Browsers should warm you about this. I know a lot of people would just click "yes" and be done with it, but I think also given it would happen worldwide (in the case of a worldwide attack) would bring the story, the presence of new and possibly fake certs to the fore.
Also, on another note, companies like Comodo should flat out just cache Alexa or something and require additional verification before issuing a cert for a high-traffic site, especially if they don't have them as a current customer.
Isn't this the show where the writers said that at the start of the series they weren't exactly clear on the differences between a solar system and a galaxy?
I do realize Watchmen really put the kibosh on movies of its ilk.
And it was a pretty good movie. They put a lot of effort in it, it was not half-assed.
But I think that it showed legit issues.
In essence the problem is that the story in the movie is complex enough that it's tough to really get into by only watching the movie. So really the movie is really appealing only to those who already read the comic. And no matter how good the movie is, it isn't as good as the comic because the story had to be cut down to fit the time and the media.
So ultimately, the movie ends up with little point except as a visualization of the comic. And Watchmen even did a good job of this, but it still didn't make much money.
There should be room for a few R-rated fantasy movies. And I'm sure there will be again some day. They'll just have to start with low budget ones and work back up again.
But in the end, I think Watchmen's downfall wasn't an unfortunate fluke or due to poor execution. It did really show the problems with making a story like that into a movie.
The article says even pay-as-you-go phones can use this because it doesn't require a data plan.
But... the SIM in your phone comes from your operator. So in order to use it, your operator has to load it onto the SIM before they give it to you.
Why would they charge any less for this service (or the SMSes involved) than they would for a data plan to access Facebook?
It would seem to me you want the program in the phone, where the operator doesn't have any control and thus can't charge you extra to use it. Well, not any more than for other SMSes or data.
And at least one of the Adobe background apps, the one that launches Acrobat at boot so that later it won't take so long to load.
You need to use msconfig. Just press the windows key and type 'msconfig'. One of the tabs in there has startup items. You'll see GoogleUpdate in there. Uncheck it and then you'll have to reboot (msconfig has a poor UI in that way) and the item won't load anymore.
Many apps will install another copy of their startup item when they update if you've unchecked the previous one. But GoogleUpdate isn't one of these.
Yes, it is legal racketeering. There are patent trolls everywhere.
MS saying that they wouldn't sue companies for shipping Android if they also ship some WP7 handsets? It's all over the place.
MPEG-LA hasn't waived any fees for a short time. They still have the same fee schedule for H.264 as ever. It's free for some uses (and recently that period was extended to forever), but for many commercial uses it costs money and that's hasn't changed.
Are you saying you have native (dual stack) IPv6 at home or do you have 6RD or 6to4? With the latter two, your router is responsible for tunneling your local, real IPv6 through IPv4.
With native IPv6 (dual stack), your router actually just forwards (bridges really) IPv6 packets between its two interfaces.
Comcast has turned on 6to4/6RD for everyone nationwide, but I don't think native IPv6 (dual stack) is turned on yet for many (Comcast mentions one persion in Colorado having it as of two weeks ago).
As you can see from the wikipedia article, the WRT610N supports 6to4. But I do not believe it supports native IPv6.
Apple's base stations are certified IPv6 ready, which means not only do they work with IPv6, but they have it on by default. The others might require you turn it on. Instructions on how to set up some of them are on Comcast's site.
I've had Comcast internet for two years, they haven't MAC-locked their service in the time I've had them. If you want more than one device at your house to work, you need a NAT/PAT gateway whether you use WiFi or not, as you only get a single IP address from Comcast.
But the audio files are posted and some people are listening to them and hand-transcribing interesting ones, including Arabic ones and retweeting them with the same hash tag.
They cannot be read inside the country, but it still works for getting messages out.
Use a balance scale. Put masses on both sides. If it balances, the weights are the same on both sides. Since we think weight is directly tied to mass and gravity, and gravity doesn't vary that much in small areas, then the masses on both sides are the same and you have your own (non-canonical, but accurate) reference. It doesn't really matter if you did this in 0.5G, 1G or 10G, they'll still balance.
Two masses of the same material displace the same amount of air and thus you don't have to worry about the "air buoyancy" factor.
If you don't like all that, you could use a spring pendulum in a vacuum to compare the two. But I think that's just more hassle, due to what I said above about variances in gravity not mattering.
First of all, there's no wormhole here. The signal still goes through Euclidean space. You're not beating spacetime here, you're just beating signal attenuation (r^3 falloff due to radiation).
No, this doesn't spell any utter doom. This attack is complicated to pull off and also requires a person be near you to do the attack. If they're going to get that close, they might as well steal my key off me.
There are many handsfree systems that are very sophisticated about locating the key. The one on my car only opens the door you are standing next to. If I stand by the driver's door, the passenger door won't be unlocked. And vice-versa. I have to stand near the trunk to open it (or press the button). If I leave the key inside the car, it will refuse to lock its down doors, as far as I can tell, it is impossible to lock the key in the car, including in the back.
A system like this which is locating the key spatially is less likely to be fooled by trying to pretend the key is in a location other than it is by relaying signals. I am of course not saying it is unfoolable.
Either way, before electronic keys, all someone had to do was take a picture (or impression) of your car key and they could replicate it and steal your car. Now they need to have two people, a lot more sophisticated equipment for rebroadcasting signals and to tail you constantly to get in the car to open.
So I fail to see how we're approaching utter doom. Things were worse before and we still survived and most cars were not stolen.
Besides, the easiest way to steal a car now and then is still to just use a tow truck. You don't need to find the owner and rebroadcast his signal to do that.
Look at the back of your iPhone 4, does it say "iPhone 4"? No, it says iPhone. Look at a new MacBook Air, does it say "MacBook Air 2" on it? No, it says MacBook Air.
Apple would never print iPad 2 on a 2nd generation iPad.
Slashdot Mirror
Which I think the developers know and don't mind much at all.
If I play it on a console I don't get malware on my PC.
I didn't buy Starcraft 2 because of the whole "you don't own it" issue.
I try not to buy games on Steam because the more games you buy on Steam, the more you stand to lose if Valve decides to cut your account off. If they cut you off because of a dispute over one game, you lose the ability to run all the games you "own". At least with other DRM schemes I don't stand to lose everything over one game, I might lose it but I can still run my other games.
That's great. I agree with your assessment as to what the authentication is for.
But this isn't about changing the definition of the problem, it's about solving the problem before you.
How would open source have solved the problem of authenticating this device as being from Apple?
You repeat the mantra, but do you understand it?
How would the open source community solve this problem?
What version of device authentication doesn't involve having a critical secret key on the device being authenticated? Such a secret is the very basis upon which authentication works.
The only possible solution to this that I know if is different hardware that guards the key better and I don't know that the open source community is going to provide that.
Hotz released his hypervisor hack for PS3 and then Sony removed the ability to run other OSes in response.
Hotz then released another hack later which brought the ability to run other OSes back.
Hotz did not just act to restore something Sony had removed, Hotz acted first by breaking out of the penalty box that other OSes ran in. You may agree or disagree with breaking out of the penalty box, but either way, that was the first punch that started the battle between Hotz and Sony, not Sony removing the capability to run other OSes.
Radiosity being a 90s computer graphics term for calculation how radiation (heat and light) hit surfaces and are absorbed or re-emitted by them. It came from earlier studies on this not relating to computer graphics.
You can render your radiosity results using phong shading or other shading techniques.
Is this the same Microsoft that settled with Immersion to give them cash to sue Sony in court over vibrating controllers with the proviso that MS would get paid from any settlement with Sony?
http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2007/06/18/microsoft-sues-immersion-over-sony-agreement/
If you're looking for a non-evil company, Microsoft isn't it.
I do think Sony's lawsuit is pointless and stupid. Microsoft is smarter to avoid all this. But that's not a question of evil/non-evil, it's just wiser or less wise.
Sorry, I don't agree. The true bad idea is for your browser to accept certs from 650 different possible companies as being valid for google.com when in reality most of them never really could be. Virtually all of the time, the only valid cert today is the same one it was yesterday. And even when it does legitimately change, it's not going to be to "Certigna", "CertNomis", "Belgium Root CA", "Juur-SK" or "Baltimore CyberTrust Root". So even if the user has a 90% chance of clicking the wrong button, the odds still rise. And as I mentioned before, the real point of putting this message up isn't protecting them, it's that a spoof like this will be noticed by the internet community as a whole because these questions will start coming up.
Right now, if this spoof happened, how long would it take before someone noticed they are trusting a bogus Certigna cert when Google's certs had previously (and still legitimately) come from Thawte?
It's not about making things perfect. It's about making things better.
The system would warn you of the switch and you have to decide whether to believe Google switched or whether this is a fake.
Like I said, I know that most people wouldn't answer the question (trust or not) correctly and thus wouldn't personally be protected, but the presence of this message on many people's screens will as a whole at least make sure the impersonations didn't go unnoticed for long.
Question #4, on the list, perhaps.
Why, if Google's certs come from Thawte, is it that big a problem of Comodo issues a bogus google.com cert?
Browsers should remember that Google's certs last came from Thawte (a particular root cert) and today, all of a sudden, it is being verified by another company. Browsers should warm you about this. I know a lot of people would just click "yes" and be done with it, but I think also given it would happen worldwide (in the case of a worldwide attack) would bring the story, the presence of new and possibly fake certs to the fore.
Also, on another note, companies like Comodo should flat out just cache Alexa or something and require additional verification before issuing a cert for a high-traffic site, especially if they don't have them as a current customer.
Including the same charts and graphs.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1770
How this guy is going to get a patent on this stuff based upon his work in 2008 when Intel showed it onstage at IDF in 2005 is beyond me.
Isn't this the show where the writers said that at the start of the series they weren't exactly clear on the differences between a solar system and a galaxy?
I do realize Watchmen really put the kibosh on movies of its ilk.
And it was a pretty good movie. They put a lot of effort in it, it was not half-assed.
But I think that it showed legit issues.
In essence the problem is that the story in the movie is complex enough that it's tough to really get into by only watching the movie. So really the movie is really appealing only to those who already read the comic. And no matter how good the movie is, it isn't as good as the comic because the story had to be cut down to fit the time and the media.
So ultimately, the movie ends up with little point except as a visualization of the comic. And Watchmen even did a good job of this, but it still didn't make much money.
There should be room for a few R-rated fantasy movies. And I'm sure there will be again some day. They'll just have to start with low budget ones and work back up again.
But in the end, I think Watchmen's downfall wasn't an unfortunate fluke or due to poor execution. It did really show the problems with making a story like that into a movie.
Motorola Atrix 4G.
It runs Android 2.2 and Ubuntu at the same time and you can buy it (for a crazy high price) soon.
The article says even pay-as-you-go phones can use this because it doesn't require a data plan.
But... the SIM in your phone comes from your operator. So in order to use it, your operator has to load it onto the SIM before they give it to you.
Why would they charge any less for this service (or the SMSes involved) than they would for a data plan to access Facebook?
It would seem to me you want the program in the phone, where the operator doesn't have any control and thus can't charge you extra to use it. Well, not any more than for other SMSes or data.
Did I miss something in the article, where does it confirm US involvement?
And at least one of the Adobe background apps, the one that launches Acrobat at boot so that later it won't take so long to load.
You need to use msconfig. Just press the windows key and type 'msconfig'. One of the tabs in there has startup items. You'll see GoogleUpdate in there. Uncheck it and then you'll have to reboot (msconfig has a poor UI in that way) and the item won't load anymore.
Many apps will install another copy of their startup item when they update if you've unchecked the previous one. But GoogleUpdate isn't one of these.
Yes, it is legal racketeering. There are patent trolls everywhere.
MS saying that they wouldn't sue companies for shipping Android if they also ship some WP7 handsets? It's all over the place.
MPEG-LA hasn't waived any fees for a short time. They still have the same fee schedule for H.264 as ever. It's free for some uses (and recently that period was extended to forever), but for many commercial uses it costs money and that's hasn't changed.
I'd invest in penny stocks before I invested in this.
Are you saying you have native (dual stack) IPv6 at home or do you have 6RD or 6to4? With the latter two, your router is responsible for tunneling your local, real IPv6 through IPv4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4
With native IPv6 (dual stack), your router actually just forwards (bridges really) IPv6 packets between its two interfaces.
Comcast has turned on 6to4/6RD for everyone nationwide, but I don't think native IPv6 (dual stack) is turned on yet for many (Comcast mentions one persion in Colorado having it as of two weeks ago).
As you can see from the wikipedia article, the WRT610N supports 6to4. But I do not believe it supports native IPv6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4#Consumer_routers_with_6to4_support
http://www.comcast6.net/
Apple's base stations are certified IPv6 ready, which means not only do they work with IPv6, but they have it on by default. The others might require you turn it on. Instructions on how to set up some of them are on Comcast's site.
I've had Comcast internet for two years, they haven't MAC-locked their service in the time I've had them. If you want more than one device at your house to work, you need a NAT/PAT gateway whether you use WiFi or not, as you only get a single IP address from Comcast.
But the audio files are posted and some people are listening to them and hand-transcribing interesting ones, including Arabic ones and retweeting them with the same hash tag.
They cannot be read inside the country, but it still works for getting messages out.
Use a balance scale. Put masses on both sides. If it balances, the weights are the same on both sides. Since we think weight is directly tied to mass and gravity, and gravity doesn't vary that much in small areas, then the masses on both sides are the same and you have your own (non-canonical, but accurate) reference. It doesn't really matter if you did this in 0.5G, 1G or 10G, they'll still balance.
Two masses of the same material displace the same amount of air and thus you don't have to worry about the "air buoyancy" factor.
If you don't like all that, you could use a spring pendulum in a vacuum to compare the two. But I think that's just more hassle, due to what I said above about variances in gravity not mattering.
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/20/mandatory-xbox-360-update-sneakily-halts-call-of-duty-pirates/
So no, it doesn't seem like MS is being more permissive than Sony here.
Both are trying to stop people from modding their consoles, presumably for the purpose of maintaining their revenue streams.
First of all, there's no wormhole here. The signal still goes through Euclidean space. You're not beating spacetime here, you're just beating signal attenuation (r^3 falloff due to radiation).
No, this doesn't spell any utter doom. This attack is complicated to pull off and also requires a person be near you to do the attack. If they're going to get that close, they might as well steal my key off me.
There are many handsfree systems that are very sophisticated about locating the key. The one on my car only opens the door you are standing next to. If I stand by the driver's door, the passenger door won't be unlocked. And vice-versa. I have to stand near the trunk to open it (or press the button). If I leave the key inside the car, it will refuse to lock its down doors, as far as I can tell, it is impossible to lock the key in the car, including in the back.
A system like this which is locating the key spatially is less likely to be fooled by trying to pretend the key is in a location other than it is by relaying signals. I am of course not saying it is unfoolable.
Either way, before electronic keys, all someone had to do was take a picture (or impression) of your car key and they could replicate it and steal your car. Now they need to have two people, a lot more sophisticated equipment for rebroadcasting signals and to tail you constantly to get in the car to open.
So I fail to see how we're approaching utter doom. Things were worse before and we still survived and most cars were not stolen.
Besides, the easiest way to steal a car now and then is still to just use a tow truck. You don't need to find the owner and rebroadcast his signal to do that.
Look at the back of your iPhone 4, does it say "iPhone 4"? No, it says iPhone.
Look at a new MacBook Air, does it say "MacBook Air 2" on it? No, it says MacBook Air.
Apple would never print iPad 2 on a 2nd generation iPad.