 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:50:23 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Just need to turn off AutoPlay. But still, it's not very ethical to
> hijack somebody else's property to protect your own interests. (In other
> situations I believe that's called "theft".) And it's not like it's
> going to stop the geniune criminals - only the paying customers.
Yep, it's that "I'm not going to pay money to people who think it's OK to
take control of my computer without my consent".
>> I need to look into that and see how it compares on my iPod. Rockbox
>> is supposed to be able to play the format...
>
> RockBox plays that format on my iAudio M5L... but then so did the
> manufacturer's original firmware. ;-)
Should support it here then as well. :-)
> Personally, I use CDex for ripping. Put in a disk, tell it what the
> tracks are called, hit rip. It generates the Vorbis files, names them,
> and encodes the metadata into them. Copy and play...
I use grip myself. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I read recently in Scientific American about quantum technology being
used in encryption. Basically the idea is that the individual particles
used in the transmission signal are charged or spun at the quantum level
in such a way (without affecting the data itself) that the signal can't
be intercepted or examined without corrupting this charge or spin and
marking the signal as compromised. This got me thinking as to whether an
arbitrary pattern of electrons or light (i.e. an audio file being
transmitted or stored on a medium) could be "tagged" at the quantum
level, thus making it unreadable without proper hardware (or at least
the correct key) and making it useful for DRM purposes. Since the data
itself does not change (just some normally ignored/discarded
characteristics of the transmission signal), it would not affect the
size or performance of the DRM encoded data.
Here's the link:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=swiss-test-quantum-cryptography
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2009 12:30 PM, SharkD wrote:
> I read recently in Scientific American about quantum technology being
> used in encryption. Basically the idea is that the individual particles
> used in the transmission signal are charged or spun at the quantum level
> in such a way (without affecting the data itself) that the signal can't
> be intercepted or examined without corrupting this charge or spin and
> marking the signal as compromised. This got me thinking as to whether an
> arbitrary pattern of electrons or light (i.e. an audio file being
> transmitted or stored on a medium) could be "tagged" at the quantum
> level, thus making it unreadable without proper hardware (or at least
> the correct key) and making it useful for DRM purposes. Since the data
> itself does not change (just some normally ignored/discarded
> characteristics of the transmission signal), it would not affect the
> size or performance of the DRM encoded data.
>
> Here's the link:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=swiss-test-quantum-cryptography
>
>
> Mike
Of course, if quantum computing were to ever emerge as a viable
technology, this would no longer work since the technique "piggy-backs"
upon existing technology.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I'd disagree with that, in fact it's almost the opposite. IME OSS seems
> to be driven by individual developers doing whatever they feel like
> doing whenever they feel like it, they have no requirement to implement
> certain features or to be ready by a certain date.
There are different kinds of OSS.
Something like GCC or emacs (or POV) is going to be driven by developers who
need their tools.
Something like Open Office is written by a company that doesn't really do
software for a living, but instead wants to undercut the software of a
competitor. In this case, Sun trying to sell Sparcstations without Microsoft
eating their lunch.
Something like Blender is software that was originally in-house until the
developers thought it would be more valuable to make it open source,
primarily because their business changed. (In this case, their business
changed to "out of business", but other changes work too.)
> Users benefit from DRM by getting the same product for cheaper, it's
> just most don't realise this.
That's the assumption. I am not sure one can tell if it's right or not.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> could be "tagged" at the quantum level,
Answer: No. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> Of course, if quantum computing were to ever emerge as a viable
> technology, this would no longer work since the technique "piggy-backs"
> upon existing technology.
The quantum encryption would continue to work fine. You can't *store*
quantum keys. That's the whole point that makes quantum cryptography work.
Therefore Quantum DRM is not going to happen, at least not using the same
techniques as quantum cryptography.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: Open source software is always stable
Date: 19 Oct 2009 14:18:57
Message: <4adcad91@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I use grip myself. :-)
Heh, there's got to be a joke in there somewhere...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:19:00 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> I use grip myself. :-)
>
> Heh, there's got to be a joke in there somewhere...
There probably is - I'm just waiting for you to find it. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2009 10:59 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> You haven't answered my question about what your point is.....I'm still
> waiting.
>
> Jim
You'll just have to remain mystified.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:56:20 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> On 10/19/2009 10:59 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You haven't answered my question about what your point is.....I'm still
>> waiting.
>>
>> Jim
>
> You'll just have to remain mystified.
I shan't waste any more time on it then, if you can't be bothered to
communicate clearly, it's your loss. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
