 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/14/2011 1:07, Invisible wrote:
> It would be harder to crack if you invented some new storage format and then
> made all devices capable of playing it respect the DRM.
They did this with DVDs and Blu-Rays.
> (In particular, this means not making it playable on a PC.)
The PC playback software respected the DRM. Someone just found a way to
break into the PC software. Just like they found a way to break into the PS3
hardware.
> Trouble is, as I say, as soon as one
> company manufactures a device that ignores the DRM, everything is ruined
> forever.
Or as soon as the DRM scheme is broken. Most DRM schemes have mechanisms
for repudiating certain schemes or keys or players or whatever. The Windows
DRM stuff has a bunch of things in there to make sure that if you do manage
to break it and they find out the player that broke, they can keep the keys
away from that player in the future. Of course, this means that every
player has to communicate with the servers at some point before they can
play stuff, so it wouldn't really work well for things like DVDs but rather
only for online stuff.
> On the other hand, if you can see it, you can copy it. At least until they
> ban video recording equipment...
Yes, that's basically the trick I'm speaking of.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:22:23 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/04/2011 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>
>>>> That goes back a bit before my time. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 1986?
>>
>> Hmm, maybe not - I had been thinking it was more contemporary to the
>> C64, but my brain hiccuped. ;)
>
> You might be buying one of these then.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12997245
I've been following that story with some interest, but I probably won't
get one - the classic C64 keyboard isn't well suited for my way of
typing, and the layout differs from standard layouts now (though perhaps
they'll address that).
>>> The youngsters today don't know that they are living. Four
>>> Yorkshiremen?
>>>
>>> http://www.zappinternet.com/video/jetCpaHyaK/At-Last-the-1948-Show-
The-
>> Four-Yorkshiremen-Sketch
>>
>> Indeed, I've seen/heard many versions of it. BTW, thanks for the 'new
>> to me' Clue - I was right, we hadn't heard those before. :)
>>
>>
> Clue? At last the 1948 show.
Haven't done the 1948 show episodes yet, but yes, there was the 1976
series of Clue in there as well. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:30:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 1:07, Invisible wrote:
>> It would be harder to crack if you invented some new storage format and
>> then made all devices capable of playing it respect the DRM.
>
> They did this with DVDs and Blu-Rays.
And that didn't exactly work out well - both formats' DRM has been broken
(DVD for many years now).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/14/2011 10:07, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:30:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/2011 1:07, Invisible wrote:
>>> It would be harder to crack if you invented some new storage format and
>>> then made all devices capable of playing it respect the DRM.
>>
>> They did this with DVDs and Blu-Rays.
>
> And that didn't exactly work out well - both formats' DRM has been broken
> (DVD for many years now).
That's precisely my point. :-) It doesn't work out a whole lot better if you
have multiple sources for the DRM interpreters.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:14:00 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 10:07, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:30:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/14/2011 1:07, Invisible wrote:
>>>> It would be harder to crack if you invented some new storage format
>>>> and then made all devices capable of playing it respect the DRM.
>>>
>>> They did this with DVDs and Blu-Rays.
>>
>> And that didn't exactly work out well - both formats' DRM has been
>> broken (DVD for many years now).
>
> That's precisely my point. :-) It doesn't work out a whole lot better if
> you have multiple sources for the DRM interpreters.
True.
The fundamental flaw with DRM, as you (I think said) elsewhere is that if
one can consume the media, one has to decrypt it, and if one can decrypt
it to consume it, one can decrypt it (maybe *eventually*) for other uses.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/04/2011 6:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Haven't done the 1948 show episodes yet, but yes, there was the 1976
> series of Clue in there as well.:)
>
Not many of the episodes survived I'm in the process of converting some
of the few I've got to send to you.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:33:18 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/04/2011 6:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Haven't done the 1948 show episodes yet, but yes, there was the 1976
>> series of Clue in there as well.:)
>>
> Not many of the episodes survived I'm in the process of converting some
> of the few I've got to send to you.
Oh, cool, I didn't know there were more. Let me know and I'll set the
port forwarding up again (I shut it down when the last transfer finished).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/04/2011 7:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Oh, cool, I didn't know there were more. Let me know and I'll set the
> port forwarding up again (I shut it down when the last transfer finished).
>
I'm ready to upload. There are 3 episodes B&W and a couple of
interviews. I can't find disc 1 ATM. I've also got some "I'm sorry I'll
read it again".
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/04/2011 7:35 PM, Stephen wrote:
> I've also got some "I'm sorry I'll read it again".
Sorry, "Do not adjust your set"
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/12/2011 9:15 AM, Invisible wrote:
> When I was a kid, I used to enjoy watching TV programs about the future.
> Stuff like Tomorrow's World and Beyond 2000. Basically programs where
> they show you crazy new inventions. Some of them seemed fantastic, some
> of them seemed utterly stupid. There aren't that many that I still
> remember.
Beyond 2000 was my favorite growing up. I so miss that program. Always
liked the opening sequence, too. The title music was catchy.
> Yeah, well, /that/ never happened. :-P Today of course, it wouldn't be a
> telephone number. It would be some kind of Internet operation. But there
> are a number of security, safety and reliability questions to consider.
> Do you want random strangers to be able to control your oven, or open
> all your windows? Probably not. What happens when the system stops
> working? On top of that, given that they've yet to come up with a way
> for the component parts of your stereo system to communicate with each
> other unless they're all from the same manufacturer, the chances of your
> entire *house* cooperating are pretty non-existent. ;-)
You'd have to have some kind of private/public key authentication system.
> Another week, they had a plastic key with a microprocessor inside it.
> When you stick it in the lock, it transmits a code to the computer in
> the lock, which makes the door unlock. [Actually, it didn't. The key
> snapped off in the lock, leaving the presenter to tell us all how
> wonderful it is, and how this is only a prototype.] It seemed pretty
> stupid to me, but today electronic locks are all over the place. They
> just don't make them shaped like mechanical keys any more - because
> that's silly.
Yep. My FIL's Toyota pretty much has a transceiver in the fob and a
button you push to start the engine. No key involved. The fob stays in
your pocket the whole time. I wonder how far someone could get, though
if say, they hopped in your car while you were standing near and took
off. (Would the car keep running even though it was out of range of the
fob?)
> Unfortunately, towards the end of the show, every invention they
> featured was "hey, somebody took [random household object] and put a
> small computer inside it, allowing it to do [list of largely useless
> functions]". I guess that's why they eventually cancelled it; they just
> couldn't find genuinely interesting inventions any more.
Yeah, that and the title "Beyond 2000" seems kind of silly for a show
about futuristic inventions when we're, you know, beyond 2000 already ;)
> I do remember them demonstrating the Sony MiniDisk, which *did*
> eventually become a commercial product. It was supposed to kill the old
> magnetic cassettes. At the time, recordable CDs hadn't been invented. So
> while you could *buy* pressed CDs, if you wanted to *record* anything,
> the _only_ available option was cassette. The presenter explained how
> loud sounds mask out quiet sounds, and MiniDisk uses this effect to
> squeeze more data than would usually be possible onto such a small carrier.
>
> (Today of course we know that MiniDisk belongs with Zip and Jazz in the
> category of "kind of successful, but not very". Zip disks were supposed
> to kill the 3.5" floppy. LS-120 was supposed to kill it. Jazz was
> supposed to kill it. CD-R nearly killed it. But in the end, flash drives
> are what actually finished the humble floppy. Similarly, cassette was
> killed not so much by MiniDisk but by a combination of CD-R and
> ubiquitous MP3 players, not to mention the Internet.)
>
Once people could duplicate a CD, and MP3 went mainstream, yep. Cassette
died. The only way it could survive is if you have an old car radio, but
I suspect people just simply replace those with something that can play
CD's full of MP3's anyway.
I have a feeling the CD is a dying species. Soon everything will either
be on a high-density ROM or flash chip.
> I remember seeing the first automatic speed cameras, and thinking this
> was a neat idea. Oh how wrong I was... ;-)
Terrible, terrible idea.
> So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's
> completely vanished off the face of existence?
>
> There seemed to be some suggesting that the entire IC might work by
> processing light instead of electricity. I'm sceptical about whether
> that could work. I'm not aware of any light-based switching technology.
>
Seems like I saw that Intel was playing with this very thing. Only, as
you mentioned using light as a replacement for the copper traces, rather
than the actual switching. And even more interesting, one trace can
contain several signals by transmitting different wavelengths down one
path.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
