8 posts • joined Tuesday 29th May 2007 18:23 GMT
RE: Jolyon Ralph
That's exactly how it is done.
The credit value is stored both on the card and on a central database because it's not possible for real time authentication via the central server for all transactions. So instead the transactions are logged, and the readers take the cards balance at face value, and the money is taken off the card. Then there is a nightly audit ran through where the transactions are processed on the central server, taking the balance off there and comparing the cards stated balance with what the actual balance should have been.
This is why they state that the most you can gain from this is one days travel, the nightly audits will flag up any discrepancies in the value the card states and the value in the central database, and will therefore flag the card as being cloned.
RE: Anyone remember the Vincennes?
"It seems that not much has changed in the Gulf in a generation."
You know, I could have sworn that I saw an actual lack of gunfire in the video. That they didn't just take the threats at face value and blast the ships out of the water shows that at lot more has changed than you give them credit for.
The crew onboard the warships showed one hell of alot more restraint than most people would have if they had speedboats seemingly coming at them and threats they'd be blown up coming over the radio, even if there was a chance it wasn't them.
As stated by others cable stream all the channels (even the on demand streams other people in your area are viewing are streamed to your box) and they are encrypted (by nagravision) so to decrypt them you still need the viewing card, and just getting a DVB-C card with a CAM to take the card wont be sufficient as the viewing cards are locked to the mac of the set top box.
There are ways around it with software CAM emulation, but it's very much against the Virgin t&c's and on very dubious legal ground.
Re: Who's money?
"If that's the case, then as as Linux user, shouldn't I get some kind of rebate on the license fee? Given that I pay for my TV License and find that I'm paying for a service I can't use. (And no doubt the license fee will skyrocket along with the BBC bandwidth costs)"
My Nan doesn't even have a PC, should she get a rebate as she can't even use the BBC website yet alone any version of the iPlayer?
I don't listen to the radio, can I get a rebate for that?
I've never watched any of the BBC digital channels, when should I be expecting my rebate for them?
Just because you pay the license fee doesn't mean that they have to automatically provide you with every single service that it pays for, it's your responsibility to make sure you have the equipment to take advantage of it, whether that is buying a digital box, a radio, a pc, or even a copy of windows. They make it avaliable, but at every stage you have to get the right equipment to use it, and if you can't, then tough luck.
The real problem here...
Is that DRM is NEEDED, it's a contractual obligation for them to provide DRM on the content. They CAN'T just give it away DRM free as it'd make it avaliable to everyone worldwide and that would piss off their content providers and lead to no iPlayer for anyone. Yes, as all know DRM is bad blah blah doesn't work blah blah blah, but as long as the content providers demand it it has to be done or there's no content.
The only platform where the DRM exists to do what is being asked of the BBC to provide this content is windows. It's simple comman sense then that the only platform they CAN offer the service on at the moment is windows.
You want iPlayer on linux/mac/whatever go write a DRM system that can be used on all platforms that has the required features (such as 7 day expiry) or stop complaining and expecting the BBC to do the impossible and somehow magic it to work within the constraints of their agreements.
Re: Re: Trying to understand....
I'm not usually one to jump to m$'s defense, but:
"If it is illegal to do so, then don't expose the API"
Firstly, the API ISN'T exposed, he uses a hack to get to it.
Secondly, just because you can do something it doesn't mean that you are allowed to. I could drive the wrong way down a one way street, does that mean that because I can do I should, I mean, if it's illegal to do so then they should make it so I can't right?
There is only so much you can do to prevent people from doing something they shouldn't, and when people ignore it and do it anyway it's time to call in the lawyers.
I may be cynical but I can't help but think that this guy is using this situation as a heap of publicity to sell more copies of his program.
"Plus, I'm using Opera, and the interface is clean and effective, without any noticeable bugs"
I must be loading the Irish version then, because for me in Opera up with the mouse wheel scrolls down and down scrolls up.
RE: Yes, but...
"Is it me, or does anybody else not actually see the connection between his playing the game and his helping out?"
That is the entire point of the article, there is no connection, just like there's no connection between people playing games and running around shooting people. Just in that case being a gamer is bought out and paraded in a bad light, whereas here, it's ignored.