Two questions

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Vidity won't run on a chipset which doesn't incorporate the
CryptoManager core.

To run Vidity, they have to have a chipset which incorporates the
CryptoManager core. As I understand it, the CryptoManager core is an
integral part of the particular chipset.

As nospam says, "so what?". The adoption of Vidity's crypto module
should be host processor agnostic.

One of it's tasks is to deal with information leakage which definitely
is hardware specific.

What part of "so what?" don't you get.

There is nothing about all this that can't be controlled by a host
processor that doesn't see the data stream at all (or only while it is
encrypted). A vividy processor with audio/video channels out to the
display and audio "cards" is just another thing that can be commanded
from another processor - all while not being able to intercept the
decrypted streams.

What also strikes me is that the Vividy system would not be allowed in
devices such as Apple TV because the decrypted output would thence go
via HDMI to the monitor/television which would make it ripe for piracy.

there's hdcp but that's easily stripped.

So one will need the Vividy device built in to their televisions.

at which point, a pirate can simply point a camera at the tv. it won't
be the best quality but pirates don't give a ****.

more sophisticated pirates could intercept the video signals going to
the lcd display.

at *some* point, the movie has to be decrypted so that humans can watch
it, at which point, it can be copied.

piracy *cannot* be eliminated and crap like vidity only serves to ****
off the honest user.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I had intended to let this discussion die on it's feet but I have
found a number of relavant web sites.

First, there is
http://www.rambus.com/security/dpa-c...esistant-core/

"The DPA Resistant AES Core is a high-security AES primitive that
offers chipmakers an easy-to-integrate security solution with
built-in side-channel resistance for cryptographic functions across
a wide range of devices."

This is a device which clearly is intended to be built in to someone
else's silicon. It's not an external add-on.

that does't say it will be part of the *processor*.

anyway, you have to answer if windows pcs will adopt it. if they don't,
what will windows pcs do without the ability to play movies? or is
apple the only one who will supposedly be left out?

As I keep saying, we will have to wait and see.

in other words you have no idea.

On 2015-09-26 00:00, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:45:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

"The Cupertino giant has for months been said to be in talks with
major US studios in a bid to secure content for a streaming Apple
service. Compensation reportedly remains a sticking point."

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

Noise. Cook doesn't like how someone has portrayed his deceased friend
and says so. Sorkin then pulls a classic deflection accusing Apple of
child labour in China as a retort.

(And yes, Apple knows some suppliers have underage workers and continues
to audit and force change despite this being a failure of the Chinese
government to enforce the law.)

Sorkin's just doing his job to attract attention to his movie.

On 2015-09-26 05:08, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 00:00:18 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:45:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

"The Cupertino giant has for months been said to be in talks with
major US studios in a bid to secure content for a streaming Apple
service. Compensation reportedly remains a sticking point."

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

I hadn't heard of this until you mentioned it. While there are no
doubt some children in China assembling phones for 17 cents perhour
(and what else might they be doing without that?) the overall quality
of iPhones suggests there is a lot of automated assembly in their
construction.

There's a lot of touch labour at final assembly.

As to the child labour that's a failure of those suppliers and the
Chinese government who are very lax at enforcement.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

Noise. Cook doesn't like how someone has portrayed his deceased friend
and says so. Sorkin then pulls a classic deflection accusing Apple of
child labour in China as a retort.

(And yes, Apple knows some suppliers have underage workers and continues
to audit and force change despite this being a failure of the Chinese
government to enforce the law.)

Sorkin's just doing his job to attract attention to his movie.

yep.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

Noise. Cook doesn't like how someone has portrayed his deceased friend
and says so. Sorkin then pulls a classic deflection accusing Apple of
child labour in China as a retort.

(And yes, Apple knows some suppliers have underage workers and continues
to audit and force change despite this being a failure of the Chinese
government to enforce the law.)

Sorkin's just doing his job to attract attention to his movie.

I dunno about "deflection". Cook called the film "opportunistic", and
Sorkin rightly called Cook on claiming that a movie is opportunistic
when Apple's business plan is as opportunistic as it comes.

how is that different from every other company?

hint: it isn't.

sorkin is doing nothing more than stirring the pot to get some
publicity for his film.

At least Sorkin has seen an Apple product. Cook admits he's never
seen the film that he criticized.

the reality is that a lot of people are cashing in on steve job's death
with movies and books that are anywhere from somewhat accurate to
mostly fiction which is why tim said what he said.

and it's not just apple. sorkin's movie about facebook was light on
facts. he claimed that zuckerberg created facebook to meet girls which
was completely bogus. the movie was simply cashing in on facebook's
success with a mostly fabricated story that looked good on screen.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

I hadn't heard of this until you mentioned it. While there are no
doubt some children in China assembling phones for 17 cents perhour
(and what else might they be doing without that?) the overall quality
of iPhones suggests there is a lot of automated assembly in their
construction.

There's a lot of touch labour at final assembly.

As to the child labour that's a failure of those suppliers and the
Chinese government who are very lax at enforcement.

So no failure on Apple's part in choosing and using those suppliers?
In taking advantage of the lax enforcement?

What Apple is doing is what so many other companies are doing, but
since when is doing what other people are doing an excuse for doing
it?

since when is it acceptable to bash only one company, who has done the
most to make the situation better, while the other companies do little
to nothing at all?

in other words, the *other* companies are taking advantage of the lax
enforcement, while apple takes the heat despite trying to fix it.

*that's* why tim criticized sorkin.

On 9/26/2015 8:40 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I hadn't heard of this until you mentioned it. While there are no
doubt some children in China assembling phones for 17 cents perhour
(and what else might they be doing without that?) the overall quality
of iPhones suggests there is a lot of automated assembly in their
construction.

the same factories make just about every piece of electronics and apple
has done more than any other company to improve the situation.

but why let facts get in the way.


In some cultures everybody is a cannibal, does that make it OK?
Since you don't understand subtlety, I will rephrase: Just because
"everybody" does something, doesn't make it right.
..

--
PeterN

On 9/26/2015 10:40 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Vidity won't run on a chipset which doesn't incorporate the
CryptoManager core.

To run Vidity, they have to have a chipset which incorporates the
CryptoManager core. As I understand it, the CryptoManager core is an
integral part of the particular chipset.

As nospam says, "so what?". The adoption of Vidity's crypto module
should be host processor agnostic.

One of it's tasks is to deal with information leakage which definitely
is hardware specific.

What part of "so what?" don't you get.

There is nothing about all this that can't be controlled by a host
processor that doesn't see the data stream at all (or only while it is
encrypted). A vividy processor with audio/video channels out to the
display and audio "cards" is just another thing that can be commanded
from another processor - all while not being able to intercept the
decrypted streams.

What also strikes me is that the Vividy system would not be allowed in
devices such as Apple TV because the decrypted output would thence go
via HDMI to the monitor/television which would make it ripe for piracy.

there's hdcp but that's easily stripped.

So one will need the Vividy device built in to their televisions.

at which point, a pirate can simply point a camera at the tv. it won't
be the best quality but pirates don't give a ****.

If the quality is that bad, the pirate will have few customers.


more sophisticated pirates could intercept the video signals going to
the lcd display.

at *some* point, the movie has to be decrypted so that humans can watch
it, at which point, it can be copied.

piracy *cannot* be eliminated and crap like vidity only serves to ****
off the honest user.


You think if you repeat something often enough it will be true.
The fact is that piracy CAN be eliminated, but the cost of doing so
makes it economically not feasible.
You remind me of the credit manager who brags that he has no bad debts.
I recommended that he be fired. Management took my advice and profits
dramatically increased.


--
PeterN

On 9/26/2015 11:38 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

Noise. Cook doesn't like how someone has portrayed his deceased friend
and says so. Sorkin then pulls a classic deflection accusing Apple of
child labour in China as a retort.

(And yes, Apple knows some suppliers have underage workers and continues
to audit and force change despite this being a failure of the Chinese
government to enforce the law.)

Sorkin's just doing his job to attract attention to his movie.

I dunno about "deflection". Cook called the film "opportunistic", and
Sorkin rightly called Cook on claiming that a movie is opportunistic
when Apple's business plan is as opportunistic as it comes.

how is that different from every other company?

hint: it isn't.


Go out and start a Ponzi scheme. Everybody else does that.


bull**** snip


--
PeterN