 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Beyond 2000 was my favorite growing up. I so miss that program. Always
> liked the opening sequence, too. The title music was catchy.
I remember the opening sequence being *very* futuristic. I don't
remember the music though.
>> 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.
My car is the same.
I still maintain that making a mechanical key out of plastic is a stupid
idea. ;-)
> 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?)
Given that the batteries in the fob eventually die, it would be a safety
issue if the car just suddenly stopped when that happened. (Or when you
drive past something that emits too much interference.) So I believe
that once the engine is running, anybody that wants to can drive off
with the car.
My car beeps at you if you try to shut the door with the keys outside
the car. It also refuses to lock the doors if the keys are inside. It's
surprising how many times I've put the keys in my bag, pressed the
button, the doors didn't lock, and 2 hours later my car is still there.
I guess people don't go around actually /trying/ to get into cars just
in case they're unlocked. ;-)
>> 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 think we all knew that flying cars really weren't just around the
corner. ;-)
>> 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.
It was possible to make a portable solid-state music player for quite
some time. But with (say) 64MB of flash, why would you bother? That
would be, like, 6 minutes of music.
MP3 is what made it feasible. Now 64MB is nearer an hour of music...
> 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 wish my car could play compressed CDs. Or even if it just had a CD
changer like the salesman claimed it had... Or, hell, even just a way to
plug in an external sound source.
> I have a feeling the CD is a dying species. Soon everything will either
> be on a high-density ROM or flash chip.
I don't see CD dying anytime soon.
>> I remember seeing the first automatic speed cameras, and thinking this
>> was a neat idea. Oh how wrong I was... ;-)
>
> Terrible, terrible idea.
It's a simple idea, but in practise it doesn't work like it's supposed to.
>> 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.
The advantage of light is that signals can pass straight through each
other, significantly shortening signal paths. Plus I gather there are
power savings, and a lack of capacitance to worry about.
Then again, if this stuff is so great, where is it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/04/2011 21:24, nemesis wrote:
> see, your blog would be much more active if you reserved such texts for
> it. ;)
No, if I put this on my blog, I would have just got no responses at all.
:-P Nobody actually reads my blog. (Well, except me of course...)
> You know you're in the future when you have your telephone, stereo, book
> library, TV set, bank account and games right with you all the time in
> your pocket. And Space Invaders looks better than Star Wars.
Star Wars. How apt. The originals were made at a time when technology
could barely do anything, and they're brilliant. The new ones were made
in a modern age of technical excellence, and they're awful...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/04/2011 2:59 PM, Invisible wrote:
> I wish my car could play compressed CDs. Or even if it just had a CD
> changer like the salesman claimed it had... Or, hell, even just a way to
> plug in an external sound source.
You could buy something like an iTrip which connects to your MP3 player
and transmits the audio output as an FM radio signal, which is picked up
by your car radio.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
