JackKieser
-
Posts
550 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JackKieser
-
-
Woah, woah, woah. I know Zircon's mix is awesome, but it's MUCH more prudent to direct these fine acoustic gentlemen to the following mix: Click Here.. That's "Vampire Spanker", by Danneman & Silverknekt. THIS is an amazing example of the interpretation the OCR community likes to hear in its acoustic songs. Not to mention, it's just an amazing song all-around; if you guys don't already have it in your comp, you should get it now.
I think you're both entirely capable of creating a duet along these lines, judging from what I've heard of you on YouTube; you're proficient enough players, and have the ear for it, certainly; I was waiting for this kind of interpretation when I heard the "Ryu's Determination" theme in your NG cover, and although your straight playing was, by all accounts, beautiful, it could have been so much more expressive if you had let yourselves really get into it.
So... let's hear it. Challenge set. ^_-
-
I'm just going to leave this here...
Dear Internets,This is Lulz Security, better known as those evil bastards from twitter. We just hit 1000 tweets, and as such we thought it best to have a little chit-chat with our friends (and foes).
For the past month and a bit, we've been causing mayhem and chaos throughout the Internet, attacking several targets including PBS, Sony, Fox, porn websites, FBI, CIA, the U.S. government, Sony some more, online gaming servers (by request of callers, not by our own choice), Sony again, and of course our good friend Sony.
While we've gained many, many supporters, we do have a mass of enemies, albeit mainly gamers. The main anti-LulzSec argument suggests that we're going to bring down more Internet laws by continuing our public shenanigans, and that our actions are causing clowns with pens to write new rules for you. But what if we just hadn't released anything? What if we were silent? That would mean we would be secretly inside FBI affiliates right now, inside PBS, inside Sony... watching... abusing...
Do you think every hacker announces everything they've hacked? We certainly haven't, and we're damn sure others are playing the silent game. Do you feel safe with your Facebook accounts, your Google Mail accounts, your Skype accounts? What makes you think a hacker isn't silently sitting inside all of these right now, sniping out individual people, or perhaps selling them off? You are a peon to these people. A toy. A string of characters with a value.
This is what you should be fearful of, not us releasing things publicly, but the fact that someone hasn't released something publicly. We're sitting on 200,000 Brink users right now that we never gave out. It might make you feel safe knowing we told you, so that Brink users may change their passwords. What if we hadn't told you? No one would be aware of this theft, and we'd have a fresh 200,000 peons to abuse, completely unaware of a breach.
Yes, yes, there's always the argument that releasing everything in full is just as evil, what with accounts being stolen and abused, but welcome to 2011. This is the lulz lizard era, where we do things just because we find it entertaining. Watching someone's Facebook picture turn into a penis and seeing their sister's shocked response is priceless. Receiving angry emails from the man you just sent 10 dildos to because he can't secure his Amazon password is priceless. You find it funny to watch havoc unfold, and we find it funny to cause it. We release personal data so that equally evil people can entertain us with what they do with it.
Most of you reading this love the idea of wrecking someone else's online experience anonymously. It's appealing and unique, there are no two account hijackings that are the same, no two suddenly enraged girlfriends with the same expression when you admit to killing prostitutes from her boyfriend's recently stolen MSN account, and there's certainly no limit to the lulz lizardry that we all partake in on some level.
And that's all there is to it, that's what appeals to our Internet generation. We're attracted to fast-changing scenarios, we can't stand repetitiveness, and we want our shot of entertainment or we just go and browse something else, like an unimpressed zombie. Nyan-nyan-nyan-nyan-nyan-nyan-nyan-nyan, anyway...
Nobody is truly causing the Internet to slip one way or the other, it's an inevitable outcome for us humans. We find, we nom nom nom, we move onto something else that's yummier. We've been entertaining you 1000 times with 140 characters or less, and we'll continue creating things that are exciting and new until we're brought to justice, which we might well be. But you know, we just don't give a living fuck at this point - you'll forget about us in 3 months' time when there's a new scandal to gawk at, or a new shiny thing to click on via your 2D light-filled rectangle. People who can make things work better within this rectangle have power over others; the whitehats who charge $10,000 for something we could teach you how to do over the course of a weekend, providing you aren't mentally disabled.
This is the Internet, where we screw each other over for a jolt of satisfaction. There are peons and lulz lizards; trolls and victims. There's losers that post shit they think matters, and other losers telling them their shit does not matter. In this situation, we are both of these parties, because we're fully aware that every single person that reached this final sentence just wasted a few moments of their time.
Thank you, bitches.
Lulz Security
-
Did I say that they hacked solely to prove security holes existed? No, I said that it's better to have someone hack you for teh lulz than have someone hack you to steal something. Lesser of two evils, considering you are going to get hacked eventually. No digital security is perfect. These guys hacking sucks, but they are showing to these companies that their security is flawed; like I said, they could be less dickish (by showing them in private), but oh well.
If you are given the choice between getting hacked by thieves or getting hacked by 13 year olds looking for some fun, which would you rather have? I'd rather have the neighborhood kid break into my house and show me that I'm using 3rd rate locks than have a thief break into my house and steal my TV.
-
If anything, these guys are probably hacking to show which people have lacking security, hence the name; I doubt these guys are too deep to come up with a name that means much more than "if we hack you, your security is lulz-worthy". To be honest, though, these guys should be thanked; hackers, in general, are the people exposing security flaws, and it's not like the flaws wouldn't exist had lulzsec not hacked in the first place.
The only way to know your security has a hole is for a hacker to exploit it first; in that regard, digital security is ALWAYS a game of catch-up, with the hackers always taking the lead position. If not for lulzsec, all of the people they've hacked so far wouldn't know about their own flawed security, so they do owe them a bit (considering at least these guys are hacking for teh lulz, and not to steal 70 million account passwords).
They could be less dickish about it, though.
-
Oh, I figured the battery pack thing out myself. I was getting ready to transfer some Pokés between GBA versions through Pokémon Box, but I needed fresh batteries (or at least working batteries), so I just happened to have all three on my lap with the battery compartments open at the same time (GBA / Wavebird / Wii remote). I just happened to notice a little groove or indentation on part of the GBA compartment, and realized the exact same groove was on the Wii remote.
All I had to do was put two and two together. Once I realized what I was seeing, I did a really thorough comparison between all 3 compartments and saw that they all used the exact same design, even down to the metal contact springs. So, I ordered a Wii Charge Station (I needed it, anyway; I had been putting off getting a charge station for Wii for too long), and when it got here this morning, I tested it out and found out that my hunch was correct... so I posted.
-
Where did I learn of what? The battery pack thing? Or that my threads have histories here? ^_-
-
No, unfortunately. The metal contacts on the battery packs jut out a bit from the surface of the packs themselves, and that blocks the battery covers from fitting back on. Unfortunate, but a small price to pay, I'd say.
-
So, I wasn't sure whether I should post this or not, seeing as my threads have a history on this site, but I honestly can't find anything can be raged about here, so here we go.
As the title says, I just found out today that the Nyko Wii Charge Station battery packs are 100% compatible with GBAs and Wavebirds, no modding necessary. It turns out that Nintendo hasn't fundamentally changed their battery compartment molding design since... well, since the GBA. Honestly, they haven't changed the detailing of the compartments, either; go take a look, and even grooves and indentations smaller than a millimeter thick are preserved in the battery molding of the GBA, Wavebird, AND Wii remotes.
It's crazy. Crazy fortunate for us, since that means that you can go on Amazon and buy a 13$ charge station with 2 battery packs and power more than 3 generations of Nintendo devices.
Don't say I never did anything for you. ^_-
Video evidence included, of course:
-
Oh man, that was beautiful. So well played, and such a touching arrangement. I literally had tears in my eyes when it was done... Way too short, want more. T_T
-
If you really have to know, the deciding factor was peer review and the online component; I also liked being locked out of all of the proceeding Pokèmon, because it gave the game less of a "hey, let's just cram new Pokès in there" feel, and more of a "hey, let's craft a new game only for the new guys" feel. Also, Team Plasma; their arguments about Pokècaptivity are valid ones, and I think I'd agree with them if they weren't such monumental dicks and didn't undermine their own thesis at every turn.
Seriously, a Pokèmon game that's not only self-referencing, but poses an actually relevant question about its own nature for analysis? Yeah, I'd like to support that.
Also, Snivy was my starter, but I refuse to call it that; it should have been named Smugleaf, and so Smugleaf it shall stay. To this day, the only time I've ever really been happy the game let me nickname Pokèmon.
-
So, finally saved up enough to afford this game (fucking textbooks... >_<). Man, WOW. Upgrade. I'm loving the new feel of the battle system; it's so much faster and more responsive. I don't feel like I'm wasting time battling wild Pokès anymore.
Chose Sumgleaf as my starter; Oshawott is cute, but smug > cute. This is going to be the first time I play thought a main story forcing myself to have less than 6 on my team, too, so... we'll see how that goes. Should make leveling easier, but I'm worried about move diversity. Audino is AWESOME, oh man, I'm going to grind the fuck out of that guy.
Just started, so about to tackle the second gym. Playing a lot of dream world, grinding for dream points. Didn't know this, but apparently you can play so many minigames on Dream Island that the game locks you out of finding anymore Pokèmon OR berries until you make a wish; I got up to about ~400 points before that happened, but still interesting to know. Apparently, you have to trade FCs on your cart AND meet with that person on Wi-Fi at least once in-game before you can go to their dream thing. Which is a pain in the ass for trying to water my friend's plants, since I only have FCs I got off of Facebook so far, and I have no need to go online yet.
Oh, and an FYI: apparently people have been getting the Damned's problem of >24 hours between syncs more than normal; it seems to be a glitch that just needs ironing out (if the site is to be believed). Sucks, but I don't think there is a workaround outside of being lucky or just waiting it out.
Anyway, FC is 4598 9629 6430, version is Black. ...I should be getting back to writing a paper, but this game is calling me why must it torture me... T_T
-
So, apparently Sony is being taken on by the Anons now. It seems that PSN has been having some trouble lately, and the Anons might be responsible. A lot of people are complaining that the Anons are "punishing" innocent end-users, instead of punishing Sony.
What those people are missing is that for as much as us forum goers and lurkers know about this case, a LOT of the general public still doesn't know what's going on; it's not like it's a top story on CNN or anything. This PSN takedown is just as much to rile up the masses and incite them into looking up information as it is to hurt Sony financially. After all, if even .1% of PSN's total membership go looking online as to why their PSN isn't working and find a news article about GeoHot, that's 69,000 people who are now informed.
Besides, if your consumer rights and the ability to own what you buy isn't worth one day of losing the ability to play CoD online, then you probably don't deserve either, to be frank.
-
Thin Crust VS JackKieser.
I dunno who I want to win. Feels like it's a no win situation.
To be fair, Thin Crust doesn't really have a position; he's just arguing that the status quo is indeed the status quo, and that GeoHot has to overcome that. The real vs. is "Sony vs. Consumer Rights", in which case, if Thin Crust is (basically) reaffirming Sony's position, it should be obvious which side is the one for average people to root for.
The argument, believe it or not, boils down to "freedom or security", and how people who would trade one for the other deserve neither.
-
Um, actually, he isn't guilty until he's proven guilty. Or did you forget that we live in a country that has an "innocent until proven guilty" system of law? He isn't even guilty now, and if he wins this civil case, the law will be on its way to being changed.
-
Objection! *slams desk* Sorry, Thin Crust, but you've already proven yourself wrong. There's an obvious contradiction in your argument... and it's right here!
It's like letting a 12 year old drive a car (he may be the best driver in the world, but does that mean we should allow him to drive?)You're right that we have standards and rules about who is allowed to drive, but just because we need to limit an action, doesn't mean it HAS to be outlawed entirely. Indeed, a 12 year old can't drive, but people, in general, still can... even though cars are, literally, capable of obscene amounts of damage to person and property. Why is this? Because the risk of misuse doesn't preclude the legitimate use of a car. The law knows this, and it treats many everyday dangerous objects and ideas in this manner. Gun are literally instruments of death, but the illegitimate use of a gun doesn't invalidate the legitimate uses, and so we restrict but we don't ban the use of guns. Same with driving.
Maybe it isn't the best idea to allow the release of a private key online... but whether it is or is not a good idea is irrelevant to this case, because what is being argued is that hacking is so dangerous that it can't even be legally allowed for an individual to hack something he or she bough and owns; if we allow people to drive or own guns, I hardly think that building a custom firmware for your PS3 is really dangerous enough to public well-being to say it has to be outlawed.
It is, of course, dangerous to Sony, but that's also irrelevant, because that's the nature of business; products and services are invented or created all the time that threaten your business; either you adapt, make a better service, or go bankrupt. If someone hacks Android onto his PS3 and doesn't need to buy games off of PSN, then it's Sony's job to make a better PSN worth buying content from, not the government's job to protect Sony's business model from competitors.
So, you see, Thin Crust...
You've just helped to prove the defense's case.
-
Dude, AIR FORCE. They'd be playing Ace Combat, yo.
-
Well, what do you expect? Few people really know how to critically think and do research these days. If all you do is listen to Sony's press releases and read the stilted media coverage so far, you'd get the impression that GeoHot is a pirate, too. Sony WANTS people to equate hacker with pirate, because that means less support for GeoHot.
For instance, there is a thread on the G&T subforum of the Penny Arcade forums in which a poster by the name of Halkun gives a play by play breakdown of the proceedings between Sony and GeoHot, made more interesting by the fact that Halkun is a lawyer that was sued by Sony for something like this in relation to the Bleem case I mentioned earlier.
When you read both sides and read the legal justifications Sony gives for it, it's painfully obvious that, although he's an ass at times, GeoHot is in the right here, and that he is, believe it or not, fighting for consumer rights, just like he did with iPhone and wireless jailbreaking. People SHOULD be on his side, because he's trying to enable consumer rights AND disallow piracy at the same time, and is capable of doing so (to whatever degree you can actually disallow piracy, that is). But, Sony is vilifying him and trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, making HIM out to be a pirate when he has stolen nothing.
It's really quite messed up that people even LISTEN to Sony at this point, but what do you expect when people doing critically think, do research, and ask questions?
-
Which is what Sony wants: they get to abuse their own users, AND they get to blame GeoHot as if he's the one personally issuing the serial keys out. It's, honestly, brilliant on Sony's part.
It's also only going to work on really, really uneducated people; everyone else will know that Sony's abuse of their own customers is only to make them money at everyone else's expense.
If Sony really cared, they just scrap the PS3 and start production on the PS4, instead of, you know, killing off their brand.
-
I just fail to see why people think he's innocent and think he has a chance in this.
This is what George Hotz is being sued for.
* Violating the DMCA
* Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
* Contributory copyright infringement
* Violations of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access & Fraud Act
* Breach of contract
* Tortious interference with contractual relations
* Common law misappropriation
* Trespass
According to the law you can be held liable for being negligent. Meaning that regardless of the fact your work had no personal intention for being used illegally you still understood the ramifications of your actions.
Fact is George Hotz knew what could have happened and it did. He isn't exempt from fault.
Thus is the reason he needs a lawyer, donations, and all the help in the world.
Um... lolololol. Sony HAS been though all of this before... AND LOST. Look up their case vs. Bleem. Sony sued Bleem for copyright infringement in nearly this exact way when Bleem produced a reverse engineered PSX emulator for PC that allowed PS1 games to be played on your computer. And guess what?
They lost.
The only reason Bleem didn't come out OK in the end is because they ended up bankrupt, but Sony still lost the case; it was one of the important cases in emulation that proved that reverse engineered emulators were legal.
On top of that, your "negligence" argument is horrible, and so is Sony's. In fact, the courts are already kind of saying as such. Sony is trying to say that reverse engineering their private key is illegal (it's not; reverse engineering is legal) and that releasing it is infringement (it's not; you can't copyright a string of numbers), AND that GeoHot is responsible for what other unrelated people do with the key he released... except, that's BS. First of all, if that logic was sound, if you could be held responsible for the actions of others unrelated to you in any way, then gun companies wouldn't exist (because guns don't kill people; people kill people, but you're still responsible for that person killing) and cars wouldn't be manufactured (because it's Ford's fault that you drove their 2000 pound death machine over the speed limit and killed that little girl, those dirty enablers).
Second of all, GeoHot didn't enable piracy with his hacks, and that can be proven though looking at the source code. Again, all he did was release the private key, which can't be used to pirate directly without specially made / edited disc pressing software / hardware or without homebrew like GeckoOS that's designed to skip disc checks, neither of which his homebrew enabling software did. GeoHot did all he could to disseminate homebrew without enabling piracy, and the fact that we're seeing lots of hacking, but hearing about few actual pirated games kind of speaks to that.
Finally, most of the claims Sony is bringing are patently ridiculous claims anyway, and it's by the grace of Christ himself that none of this has come up in court before. As was said earlier, most of the DMCA / copyright / digital media practices we have in place right now bone the consumer, but no one has been able to mount a defense so far to actually challenge this stupidity... until now. GeoHot raised his money in 18 hours; Sony is messing with hacker culture at large, and the whole of the internet in general, by suing GeoHot; not only does he know it, but the internet knows it. By the next round, he'll have the EFF firmly on his side, and for subsequent rounds, the internet will only become more emboldened.
GeoHot may be a dick at times, but he has a large coalition of people on his side. A very large coalition. Many of them outside of Sony's jurisdiction.
This is not going to be an easy fight for Sony.
-
The statement about not being able to alter the software due to agreement to the EULA is 100% correct. I had a conversation with my co-worker, who's a lawyer, and he is also a big gamer, so he had much relevant legal insight into this. The hardware is fine to fuck with, its yours, but if you want to run any software on it that isn't Sony's you better make damn sure its your software from the ground-up and nothing from Sony's whatsoever.
That's how it is NOW, but that's also what GeoHot and the internet wants to fight: that somehow digital IP is "special" and gets afforded to it special protections that physical products do not.
"You can modify the hardware, but not the software" is stupid, and should be treated as such, legally.
-
Oh, you obviously don't know very much about the history of this subject, do you?
First of all, piracy is NOT the issue here; it's what Sony WANTS you to focus on, but it's not the main target; the people Sony want to take down in the name of stopping pirates are people who modify their tech or use their software in ways they don't want. Why is this? Simple: because it opens the doors to competitors. Imagine if homebrew modders use this hack to port Android to the PS3. All of the sudden, you have another app store on which to buy downloadable titles on your PS3, one that ISN'T PSN. This costs Sony money, and so they want to stop it. If modders make homebrew games, they could make games that compete with Sony's games, and they would lose money. This is not really about piracy, this is about corporate control; the "piracy" argument simply gives Sony more moral ground to stand on so that they can trick uneducated people (kind of like what they're doing to you).
Second, there are 4 kinds of "unauthorized content distribution", and only 1 kind is harmful to an industry. Type A distribution is when people DL something they would have bought, but won't since it's free. That's bad. Type B is when people DL something that will later cause them to buy the product, such as trying out a game or software as a demo (especially if a demo doesn't exist, but that's not a requirement). Cory Doctorow publishes his books like this all the time; he allows people to DL copies online for free, and the free publicity ends up causing more people to buy his books in stores. It's proven and it works.
Type C is when content is no longer on the market to buy. It's simple to see how this is ok; if you're not selling something anyway, how are you "losing sales"? Type D is when the content is non-commercial anyway. If I download a song that an artist puts online that isn't being sold anyway, it's obviously fine to DL it.
Piracy is only a problem when Type A downloads outweigh Type B downloads. Otherwise, "illegal" downloads actually help your bottom line, since the Type A downloads are being outnumbered (think of it as a necessary evil). Sony isn't trying to stop Type A downloads... they are trying to have so much control that they control ALL TYPES of downloads using their system, including Type D content creation, which is retarded.
That's how it hurts consumers. Because Sony is trying to use the platform of piracy as a spectre to allow courts to give them control over ALL content creation using their system, and this is not in the consumer's best interest.
...man, I wish I didn't have work in 30 minutes.
-
Um, thin crust? That's kind of the problem. No other product type in the history of products and selling them has ever been treated that way, but somehow digital media SHOULD? If you buy something, you own it. That includes the copy of the software that Sony willingly provided you on the physical system you bought.
Thus, the copy on your PS3 is your property to do with as you wish, provided you don't sell it. Mod it, reverse engineer it, do whatever. except, Sony doesn't want you being able to create products or services for yourself that would make it so that you don't HAVE to give them money, so they want legal protection. It's dumb, and its not in the consumer's best interest.
-
There's a lot of detail / context that this story is missing. First of all, GeoHot released the private key, yes, but that, in and of itself, doesn't enable piracy. In fact, the original homebrew hack that GeoHot distributed was carefully crafted and controlled so that it would enable enough system access to allow for homebrew, but not allow for direct piracy; piracy using the private key can happen, but pirates would first have to figure out how to use the key to resign discs that they mint themselves or would need to design a bootloader program that forces the system to ignore key checks for disc based content in the same way GeckoOS does on the Wii.
Second, people always fail to notice that all of the PSN hacking problems, especially the MW2 and CODBLOPS hacking, aren't GeoHot's fault at ALL: they're due to IW / Treyarch giving their games too much reliance on client-side data verification, and trusting client software too much. If their server side systems didn't give so much weight to client data, they could take the time to verify the packets being sent to the game servers to check if its being altered. Problem is, that slows the game down and creates MS of lag, which IW / Treyarch thought would cripple their games. They traded safety for speed, and lost. Not GeoHot's fault; they should have secured their games better.
Third, the crux of this case is not IP law, is not DMCA violations, and is not about safety or system security... it's about corporate control over the products you buy. If you actually read the court documents detailing the claims Sony is bring to GeoHot, you'd find out that they are, in essence, suing him for playing Super Mario on his PS3, and Super Mario isn't an "authorized game". Sony knows that, as the law stands, numbers can't legally be copyrighted, so releasing the private key isn't illegal, because it's not a trade secret. So, they brought a DMCA claim, but the claim boils down to "Sony wants to be able to control how you use the stuff you buy from them".
As a consumer, this is bad.
Imagine a scenario where you buy a car from Ford, but one with a shitty sound system. You figure out a way to rewire the car and make some body modifications so that you can replace the radio and install new speakers, all aftermarket and not bought from Ford.
Then, Ford takes you to court for modifying THEIR car and using it in an unauthorized manner.
You'd think they were off their rocker, right? Well, that's what Sony is doing. And, because of how courts have, historically, grossly misunderstood technology, Sony is on their way to finally getting LEGAL JUSTIFICATION for telling you that you don't actually own computer components you buy from them, but are essentially just getting the parts on loan.
The logical culmination of this is "Microsoft does not authorize you to run Skype on this machine; install Windows Live Messenger instead."
...yay.
-
You're talking about the profit motive, right? That profit isn't a good driving force for innovation / creativity?
New acoustic duet cover of Super Mario World Castle by SuperGuitarBros on YouTube!!!
in Post Your Game ReMixes!
Posted
That's what I figured, but I thought pointing them to another acoustic mix would help them not only on this song, but on their others, as well. "MT" is rarely a bad choice, though; it really can't get enough love.