![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2axttxs
via IFTTT
via IFTTT
Jul. 30th, 2016
imp-furiosa:
heidibyeveryday:
imp-furiosa:
frustrateddemiurge:
Okay. There’s a social interaction concept that I’ve tried to convey multiple times in multiple conversations, so I’m going to just go ahead and make a graph.
I’m calling this concept “Affordance Widths”.
Let’s say there’s some behavior {B} that people can do more of, or less of. And everyone agrees that if you don’t do enough of the behavior, bad thing {X} happens; but if you do too much of the behavior, bad thing {Y} happens.
Now, let’s say we have five different people: Adam, Bob, Charles, David, and Edgar. Each of them can do more or less {B}. And once they do too little, {X} happens. But once they do too much, {Y} happens. But where {X} and {Y} starts happening is a little fuzzy, and is different for each of them. Let’s say we can magically graph it, and we get something like this:
Now, let’s look at these five men’s experiences.
Adam doesn’t understand what the big deal about {B} is. He feels like this is a behavior that people can generally choose how much they do, and yeah if they don’t do the *bare minimum* shit goes all dumb, and if they do a *ridiculous* amount then shit goes dumb a different way, but otherwise do what you want, you know?
Bob understands that {B} can be an important behavior, and that there’s a minimum acceptable level of {B} that you need to do to not suffer {X}, and a maximum amount you can get away with before you suffer {Y}. And Bob feels like {X} is probably more important a deal than {Y} is. But generally, he and Adam are going to agree quite a bit about what’s an appropriate amount of {B}ing for people to do. (Bob’s heuristic about how much {B} to do is the thin cyan line.)
Charles isn’t so lucky, by comparison. He’s got a *very* narrow band between {X} and {Y}, and he has to constantly monitor his behavior to not fall into either of them. He probably has to deal with {X} and {Y} happening a lot. If he’s lucky, he does less {B} than average; if he’s not so lucky, then he tries to copy Bob’s strategy and winds up getting smacked with {Y} way more often than Bob does.
Poor David’s in a situation called a “double bind”. There is NO POSSIBLE AMOUNT of {B} he can do to prevent both {X} and {Y} from happening; he simply has to choose his poison. If he tries Bob’s strategy, he’ll get hit hard with {X} *AND* {Y}, simultaneously, and probably be pretty pissed about it. On the other hand, if he runs into Charles, and Charles has his shit figured out, then Charles might tell him to tack into a spot where David only has to deal with {X}. Bob and Adam are going to be utterly useless to David, and are going to give advice that keeps him right in the ugly overlap zone.
Then there’s Edgar. Edgar’s fucked. There is *NO AMOUNT* of behavior that Edgar can dial into, where he isn’t getting hit HARD by {X} *and* {Y}. There’s places way out on the extreme - places where most people are getting slammed hard by {X} or slammed hard by {Y} - where Edgar notices a slight decrease in the contra failure mode. So Edgar probably spends most of his time on the edges, either doing all-B or no-B, and people probably tell him to stop being so black-and-white about B and find a good middle spot like everyone else. Edgar probably wants to punch those people, starting with Adam.
In any real situation, the affordance width is probably determined by things independent of X, Y, and B. Telling Bob to do a little more {B} than Adam, and Charles to do a little less {B} than Adam or Bob, is great advice. But David and Edgar need different advice - they need advice one meta-level up, about how to widen their affordance width between {X} and {Y} so that *some* amount of {B} will be allowed at all.
In most of the situations where this is most salient to me, {B} is a social behavior, and {X} and {Y} are punishments that people mete out to people who do not conform to correct {B}-ness. A lot of the affordance width that Adam and Bob have would probably be identified as ‘halo effects’.
For example, let’s say {B} is assertiveness in a job interview. Let’s say {X} represents coming across as socially weak, while {Y} represents coming across as arrogant. Adam probably has a lot going for him - height, age, socioeconomic background, etc. - that make him just plain *likeable*, so he can be way more assertive than Charles and seem like a go-getter, *or* seem way less assertive than Charles and seem like a good team player. Whereas David was probably born the wrong skin color and god-knows-what-else, and Edgar probably has some kind of Autism-spectrum disorder that makes *any* amount of assertiveness seem dangerous, and *any* amount of non-assertiveness seem pathetic.
There’s plenty of other values for {B}, {X} and {Y} that I could have picked; filling them in is left as an exercise for the reader.
Does this make sense to people?
Everybody want to do me a personal solid? Yeah? Good.
Add on some example behaviors that fit this. They don’t have to be gendered or something like that. They can be very specific, they can be broad. Just things people can do an amount of and that bad things happen if they do too much or too little of them.
I’ll start with eating. You can eat too much food (short term sickness, long term obesity) or too little (starvation).
This applies nicely to gendered vs. cross-gendered behaviours with punishments of negative stereotyping on either end.
Adam, as an attractive heterosexual man can appear as butch or as femme as he wants within pretty large limits and people are just going to compliment him on it.
Bob, a less-than attractive heterosexual man can act more masculine without too much fear of reprisal but can’t generally slip into more effeminate behaviours without negative comments about his presumed sexuality.Charles, as a gay man, needs to ensure that he confirms to gendered expectations as much as possible to avoid derisive stereotyping for effeminate behaviours.
David, as a trans man, is pretty much screwed if he acts the least bit feminine, but can occasionally avoid accusations of transitioning poorly if he loads up on balls out machismo.
Emily, being a trans woman, gets screwed over in that she can’t act effeminate without being accused of re-enforcing sexism and can’t act masculine without getting accused of not-being-trans-enough and pretty much gets assaulted with both negative outcomes simultaneously anyway.
Emily feels sick when she sees Adam dance around in lingerie she fears even buying, David considers punching Bob in the face for always being on his case about going to the gym too much.
Thanks for the addition! This is a really insightful take on this. I’m glad to see people contributing as I think the original post was missing at least one good example. It’s also enlightening to see just how well this can apply to such a wide array of social behaviors and expectations.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2aiVSKB
via IFTTT
heidibyeveryday:
imp-furiosa:
frustrateddemiurge:
Okay. There’s a social interaction concept that I’ve tried to convey multiple times in multiple conversations, so I’m going to just go ahead and make a graph.
I’m calling this concept “Affordance Widths”.
Let’s say there’s some behavior {B} that people can do more of, or less of. And everyone agrees that if you don’t do enough of the behavior, bad thing {X} happens; but if you do too much of the behavior, bad thing {Y} happens.
Now, let’s say we have five different people: Adam, Bob, Charles, David, and Edgar. Each of them can do more or less {B}. And once they do too little, {X} happens. But once they do too much, {Y} happens. But where {X} and {Y} starts happening is a little fuzzy, and is different for each of them. Let’s say we can magically graph it, and we get something like this:
Now, let’s look at these five men’s experiences.
Adam doesn’t understand what the big deal about {B} is. He feels like this is a behavior that people can generally choose how much they do, and yeah if they don’t do the *bare minimum* shit goes all dumb, and if they do a *ridiculous* amount then shit goes dumb a different way, but otherwise do what you want, you know?
Bob understands that {B} can be an important behavior, and that there’s a minimum acceptable level of {B} that you need to do to not suffer {X}, and a maximum amount you can get away with before you suffer {Y}. And Bob feels like {X} is probably more important a deal than {Y} is. But generally, he and Adam are going to agree quite a bit about what’s an appropriate amount of {B}ing for people to do. (Bob’s heuristic about how much {B} to do is the thin cyan line.)
Charles isn’t so lucky, by comparison. He’s got a *very* narrow band between {X} and {Y}, and he has to constantly monitor his behavior to not fall into either of them. He probably has to deal with {X} and {Y} happening a lot. If he’s lucky, he does less {B} than average; if he’s not so lucky, then he tries to copy Bob’s strategy and winds up getting smacked with {Y} way more often than Bob does.
Poor David’s in a situation called a “double bind”. There is NO POSSIBLE AMOUNT of {B} he can do to prevent both {X} and {Y} from happening; he simply has to choose his poison. If he tries Bob’s strategy, he’ll get hit hard with {X} *AND* {Y}, simultaneously, and probably be pretty pissed about it. On the other hand, if he runs into Charles, and Charles has his shit figured out, then Charles might tell him to tack into a spot where David only has to deal with {X}. Bob and Adam are going to be utterly useless to David, and are going to give advice that keeps him right in the ugly overlap zone.
Then there’s Edgar. Edgar’s fucked. There is *NO AMOUNT* of behavior that Edgar can dial into, where he isn’t getting hit HARD by {X} *and* {Y}. There’s places way out on the extreme - places where most people are getting slammed hard by {X} or slammed hard by {Y} - where Edgar notices a slight decrease in the contra failure mode. So Edgar probably spends most of his time on the edges, either doing all-B or no-B, and people probably tell him to stop being so black-and-white about B and find a good middle spot like everyone else. Edgar probably wants to punch those people, starting with Adam.
In any real situation, the affordance width is probably determined by things independent of X, Y, and B. Telling Bob to do a little more {B} than Adam, and Charles to do a little less {B} than Adam or Bob, is great advice. But David and Edgar need different advice - they need advice one meta-level up, about how to widen their affordance width between {X} and {Y} so that *some* amount of {B} will be allowed at all.
In most of the situations where this is most salient to me, {B} is a social behavior, and {X} and {Y} are punishments that people mete out to people who do not conform to correct {B}-ness. A lot of the affordance width that Adam and Bob have would probably be identified as ‘halo effects’.
For example, let’s say {B} is assertiveness in a job interview. Let’s say {X} represents coming across as socially weak, while {Y} represents coming across as arrogant. Adam probably has a lot going for him - height, age, socioeconomic background, etc. - that make him just plain *likeable*, so he can be way more assertive than Charles and seem like a go-getter, *or* seem way less assertive than Charles and seem like a good team player. Whereas David was probably born the wrong skin color and god-knows-what-else, and Edgar probably has some kind of Autism-spectrum disorder that makes *any* amount of assertiveness seem dangerous, and *any* amount of non-assertiveness seem pathetic.
There’s plenty of other values for {B}, {X} and {Y} that I could have picked; filling them in is left as an exercise for the reader.
Does this make sense to people?
Everybody want to do me a personal solid? Yeah? Good.
Add on some example behaviors that fit this. They don’t have to be gendered or something like that. They can be very specific, they can be broad. Just things people can do an amount of and that bad things happen if they do too much or too little of them.
I’ll start with eating. You can eat too much food (short term sickness, long term obesity) or too little (starvation).
This applies nicely to gendered vs. cross-gendered behaviours with punishments of negative stereotyping on either end.
Adam, as an attractive heterosexual man can appear as butch or as femme as he wants within pretty large limits and people are just going to compliment him on it.
Bob, a less-than attractive heterosexual man can act more masculine without too much fear of reprisal but can’t generally slip into more effeminate behaviours without negative comments about his presumed sexuality.Charles, as a gay man, needs to ensure that he confirms to gendered expectations as much as possible to avoid derisive stereotyping for effeminate behaviours.
David, as a trans man, is pretty much screwed if he acts the least bit feminine, but can occasionally avoid accusations of transitioning poorly if he loads up on balls out machismo.
Emily, being a trans woman, gets screwed over in that she can’t act effeminate without being accused of re-enforcing sexism and can’t act masculine without getting accused of not-being-trans-enough and pretty much gets assaulted with both negative outcomes simultaneously anyway.
Emily feels sick when she sees Adam dance around in lingerie she fears even buying, David considers punching Bob in the face for always being on his case about going to the gym too much.
Thanks for the addition! This is a really insightful take on this. I’m glad to see people contributing as I think the original post was missing at least one good example. It’s also enlightening to see just how well this can apply to such a wide array of social behaviors and expectations.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2aiVSKB
via IFTTT
wrathofthegiraffe:
sonoanthony:
My co worker brought her dog to work
You don’t need a sticker to know that. Just look into those warrior eyes
I need a button with this on it.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2axuB3X
via IFTTT
sonoanthony:
My co worker brought her dog to work
You don’t need a sticker to know that. Just look into those warrior eyes
I need a button with this on it.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2axuB3X
via IFTTT
larrywilmore:
Franchesca Ramsey hashes out the negative responses to Michelle Obama’s speech.
Watch the full episode - 7/27/16
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2aiVPOX
via IFTTT
Franchesca Ramsey hashes out the negative responses to Michelle Obama’s speech.
Watch the full episode - 7/27/16
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2aiVPOX
via IFTTT
clairelektraa:
Clairelektra Aesthetic - Fight Like A Girl
AU where Claire & Elektra are married and they are two of the best female street fighters in the country.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2a6BJX6
via IFTTT
Clairelektra Aesthetic - Fight Like A Girl
AU where Claire & Elektra are married and they are two of the best female street fighters in the country.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2a6BJX6
via IFTTT
solarcat:
bugggoo:
breezy-kishinslayer:
bugggoo:
kerryrenaissance:
mashingitlikegailthesnail:
thehungryhungryhooker:
whataneclecticbunch27:
prokopetz:
rudecanadian:
prokopetz:
While we’re on the subject of gross attitudes toward sexual assault in the tabletop roleplaying community, I’d like to briefly address a point here without derailing anybody else’s discussion.
Folks frequently react with incredulity when I remark that I know more women who’ve been driven out of the tabletop roleplaying hobby by sexual harassment and sexual assault than I do who currently participate in it, and while a big part of that is the broader atmosphere of skepticism toward women’s experiences, I think another part of it is a matter of definitions.
There are a lot of women, both in the hobby and currently out of it, who’ve had the experience of having an NPC - or, in extreme cases, another player character - sexually assault her character. For many, this is the breaking point that drove them out of the hobby in the first place.
Now, I want you to think carefully about this question: is coercing someone into roleplaying being sexually assaulted by you itself an act of sexual assault?
No, because it’s fictional. Should my girlfriend be arrested for torching an entire town? Only in the RP, where she is by and far the craziest woman I know.
The distinction you’re missing here is this: roleplaying torching a town is not, itself an act of arson, but roleplaying a graphic sex scene is, itself, a sexual act. If a dude wants you to act out a scene of sexual violence with him in the role of the aggressor, while a bunch of other guys watch, and he won’t take no for an answer… well, do the math and see what that adds up to.
(And to be clear, this isn’t some bizarre hypothetical - it happens all the time to ladies in this hobby. Just look at the notes on this very post!)
I was 17 and at my first DnD session at my local nerd shop where 40 minutes in my halfling paladin was raped by an orc. Its five years later and I’m only just starting to work myself up to playing DnD with a few friends again. Yes, I do think its an act of sexual violence.
Omg! I used to love DnD but the group I played with kept hitting on my character, do the next campaign I made a lesbian character and she got raped! I quit going after that, and the DM was furious with me and kept calling me. I have no desire to play DnD ever again; it’s too open world.
1 of my friends avoided DnD for YEARS because the first time they played, the other players raped their character & laughed about it.. They were the only non male in the room & their character was the only female character.
It sends a message to ppl who aren’t cis guys that these games aren’t for you & you can’t escape the threat of sexual violence even in fantasy spaces.
“It’s fictional” is a piss poor excuse for forcing someone to engage in your sexual fantasy when they don’t want to – or even for flirting with them in-game if they’ve made their lack of interest clear. You’re engaging with real people, even if the characters and setting aren’t real.
It may not be an arrestable crime (and is that all that matters to you?) but it can still be a traumatizing experience. And it indicates you aren’t safe to be around, if you do these things or allow them to happen.
Thank God all my groups were pretty diverse. We had a good number of women and men and nonbinary and trans ppl in college (and my group before that was pretty small, and was close friends of mine).
I had no idea that it was like this. Jesus. The biggest thing I had to deal with was one of the party members had a habit of lighting me on fire
This is why im afraid to try
Start your own group with your friends you’re comfortable with might work
The part of it that makes it terrifying and drives women away is exactly the kind of justifying men do to argue that “it’s not real!” and therefore is okay. If the first thing men can think of to do with a female character is rape her, then the women (or, more likely, woman) at the table is confronted with the very real possibility that that’s simply what those men think to do to women, period. If they all agree that this is The Thing To Do in the game, and laugh about it and make up reasons to justify it… Yeah, it’s a game, but it tells you something about the people playing it, and that’s sending a very scary message.
I think (after hours and hours of yawn-breaking boredom) when my character actually tried to do something and THAT came up…I really just looked around the table and said “are you kidding?” And found something else to do. Balling yarn listening to Lawrence Welk muzak had more appeal. Booooooring!
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2akbDuE
via IFTTT
bugggoo:
breezy-kishinslayer:
bugggoo:
kerryrenaissance:
mashingitlikegailthesnail:
thehungryhungryhooker:
whataneclecticbunch27:
prokopetz:
rudecanadian:
prokopetz:
While we’re on the subject of gross attitudes toward sexual assault in the tabletop roleplaying community, I’d like to briefly address a point here without derailing anybody else’s discussion.
Folks frequently react with incredulity when I remark that I know more women who’ve been driven out of the tabletop roleplaying hobby by sexual harassment and sexual assault than I do who currently participate in it, and while a big part of that is the broader atmosphere of skepticism toward women’s experiences, I think another part of it is a matter of definitions.
There are a lot of women, both in the hobby and currently out of it, who’ve had the experience of having an NPC - or, in extreme cases, another player character - sexually assault her character. For many, this is the breaking point that drove them out of the hobby in the first place.
Now, I want you to think carefully about this question: is coercing someone into roleplaying being sexually assaulted by you itself an act of sexual assault?
No, because it’s fictional. Should my girlfriend be arrested for torching an entire town? Only in the RP, where she is by and far the craziest woman I know.
The distinction you’re missing here is this: roleplaying torching a town is not, itself an act of arson, but roleplaying a graphic sex scene is, itself, a sexual act. If a dude wants you to act out a scene of sexual violence with him in the role of the aggressor, while a bunch of other guys watch, and he won’t take no for an answer… well, do the math and see what that adds up to.
(And to be clear, this isn’t some bizarre hypothetical - it happens all the time to ladies in this hobby. Just look at the notes on this very post!)
I was 17 and at my first DnD session at my local nerd shop where 40 minutes in my halfling paladin was raped by an orc. Its five years later and I’m only just starting to work myself up to playing DnD with a few friends again. Yes, I do think its an act of sexual violence.
Omg! I used to love DnD but the group I played with kept hitting on my character, do the next campaign I made a lesbian character and she got raped! I quit going after that, and the DM was furious with me and kept calling me. I have no desire to play DnD ever again; it’s too open world.
1 of my friends avoided DnD for YEARS because the first time they played, the other players raped their character & laughed about it.. They were the only non male in the room & their character was the only female character.
It sends a message to ppl who aren’t cis guys that these games aren’t for you & you can’t escape the threat of sexual violence even in fantasy spaces.
“It’s fictional” is a piss poor excuse for forcing someone to engage in your sexual fantasy when they don’t want to – or even for flirting with them in-game if they’ve made their lack of interest clear. You’re engaging with real people, even if the characters and setting aren’t real.
It may not be an arrestable crime (and is that all that matters to you?) but it can still be a traumatizing experience. And it indicates you aren’t safe to be around, if you do these things or allow them to happen.
Thank God all my groups were pretty diverse. We had a good number of women and men and nonbinary and trans ppl in college (and my group before that was pretty small, and was close friends of mine).
I had no idea that it was like this. Jesus. The biggest thing I had to deal with was one of the party members had a habit of lighting me on fire
This is why im afraid to try
Start your own group with your friends you’re comfortable with might work
The part of it that makes it terrifying and drives women away is exactly the kind of justifying men do to argue that “it’s not real!” and therefore is okay. If the first thing men can think of to do with a female character is rape her, then the women (or, more likely, woman) at the table is confronted with the very real possibility that that’s simply what those men think to do to women, period. If they all agree that this is The Thing To Do in the game, and laugh about it and make up reasons to justify it… Yeah, it’s a game, but it tells you something about the people playing it, and that’s sending a very scary message.
I think (after hours and hours of yawn-breaking boredom) when my character actually tried to do something and THAT came up…I really just looked around the table and said “are you kidding?” And found something else to do. Balling yarn listening to Lawrence Welk muzak had more appeal. Booooooring!
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2akbDuE
via IFTTT
“Build someone up. Put their insecurities to sleep. Remind them they’re worthy. Tell them they’re magical. Be a light in a too often dim world.”
- Unknown
(via withonefootinafairytale)
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2ak9Yp4
via IFTTT
- Unknown
(via withonefootinafairytale)
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2ak9Yp4
via IFTTT
memelovingbot:
cipherface:
Between the time when the oceans drank Atlantis, and the rise of Silicon Valley, there was an age undreamed of…
Movies were sold on big reels of tape, wound up inside little plastic boxes.
And played on machines called VCRs.
And if you wanted to create a copy of a movie, you could hook two of these machines together and do it with no problem. In fact, it was ruled in a court of law that it was a fair use of someone elses copyrighted movie to make yourself an archival copy, so that if your tape broke, or the machine ‘ate it’ you wouldn’t have to buy another one.
Hollywood didn’t care for this.
So, when the digital age dawned, someone came up with the bright idea of selling movies on DVDs. And one of the big selling points, so far as Hollywood was concerned, was that you could encrypt the data of the movie on the disc, and put hardware to decrypt it in the DVD player, in such a way that it wouldn’t play if two DVD players were hooked together, and so that someone who put a DVD into a computer couldn’t copy it.
Techies and hackers didn’t care for this.
So, they started trying to figure out how to cryptanalyze the DVDs, which were encrypted with a tech called CSS, for Content Scrambling System. And they didn’t have much luck, because crypto is hard, and breaking it is harder. And then one day they caught a lucky break.
Some manufacturers of DVD players, from Taiwan iirc, put out a new product, one of which was bought by a hacker somewhere, who tinkered with it and realized that the makers had made a mistake. They hadn’t properly protected the chips that contained the CSS decryption key, which allowed this guy to get access to it and copy it. He then created a program called DeCSS, which would allow you to put a DVD in a computer and then ‘rip’ the data to your hard drive, then write it to another DVD. He posted it online, and within hours the news, and copies of the key and code, had spread all over the world.
Hollywood flipped their shit over this.
They brought the legal hammer down on this guy, and it ended up in court. He said he had a right, as per the previous Fair Use ruling, regarding VHS tapes, to copy DVDs as well. When people had previously complained that encryption was stripping them of their rights, Hollywood had argued that there was nothing in the law that said they had to make copying easy, and basically challenged them to figure out how to break it. In the court case, Hollywood argued that under a new law that had passed, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, it was illegal to circumvent an DRM, or Digital Rights Management system. The plaintiffs counter-argued that they hadn’t really reversed engineered anything, that the dumb machines had been built wrong, that they had a right to tinker with it and see how it worked.
So, sitting between these parties was a judge who… to put it kindly, was probably in over his head. Probably some old guy, the kind of guy who still owned a VCR with the clocking blinking 12:00 PM because he didn’t know how to adjust the time. An old grandpa sorta guy. Maybe not a bad guy, just clueless about how tech works. So, when Hollywood argued that there should be some sort of injunction against the spread of the DeCSS software online, that it should be illegal for people to host it, or for others to download it, or to tell people how it worked, or even to link to it, gramps said, “Sure, why not? Here you go, here’s an order that says it’s illegal to possess this software.”
Well, the tech people freaked out about this, because it contradicted a number of already established precedents. Like Phil Zimmermann publishing the source code of PGP and shipping the books containing it to Europe, despite the fact that the encryption tech it contained had been ruled a munition that couldn’t be sold overseas. The precedent, that code was speech, and therefore subject to first amendment protections, seemed to be being thwarted in the DeCSS case. And the tech/hacker community wanted to make it clear that they weren’t going to stand for that.
So, some bright person somewhere, went out and got himself a shirt made, that had the source code of DeCSS printed on it, along with some quote from the order basically saying that it was illegal to buy or own this shirt, then started selling them on his website. This clever idea opened a floodgate of people coming up with unique ways to spread the source code of DeCSS, in a way that was tempting the court to try to stop them, on the grounds that the ruling would then go to a higher court and be turned over on first amendment grounds.
“Take t5’s low byte(AND t5 with two hundredfifty five) to put it
in the ith byte ofthe vector called k. Now shiftt5 right eight bits;
store the result int5 again. Now that’s thelast step in the loop.
No sooner have wefinished that loop than we’ll startanother; no rest
for the wicked northose innocents whom lawyersserve with paperwork.”
Quote from a long haiku that gives step by step instructions for implementing DeCSS
One of these people, Phil Carmody, raised an interesting argument. He said that software is just numbers. In fact, every piece of software is a single number, that is also a infinite number of numbers (or practically so) as there are nearly an infinite number of mathematical conversions or encodings you can perform on a number. So he wrote a little script version of DeCSS, then converted it to a number, then started to look to see if this number was the same as another somewhere. Was it hidden somewhere in pi? Or the Golden Ratio? What if you doubled it? or added 1 to it?
And after some searching, he found a list of the largest known prime numbers, wherein the 19th largest prime that had been found by that time, was the same as his code for DeCSS. So he posted this info online, and said, “If you go to this website, take this prime number, and save it in a file, then compile it, the output is this piece of software that is illegal to possess, transmit, or share information about.” Here it is, by the way:
485650789657397829309841894694286137707442087351357924019652073668698513401047237446968797439926117510973777701027447528049058831384037549709987909653955227011712157025974666993240226834596619606034851742497735846851885567457025712547499964821941846557100841190862597169479707991520048667099759235960613207259737979936188606316914473588300245336972781813914797955513399949394882899846917836100182597890103160196183503434489568705384520853804584241565482488933380474758711283395989685223254460840897111977127694120795862440547161321005006459820176961771809478113622002723448272249323259547234688002927776497906148129840428345720146348968547169082354737835661972186224969431622716663939055430241564732924855248991225739466548627140482117138124388217717602984125524464744505583462814488335631902725319590439283873764073916891257924055015620889787163375999107887084908159097548019285768451988596305323823490558092032999603234471140776019847163531161713078576084862236370283570104961259568184678596533310077017991614674472549272833486916000647585917462781212690073518309241530106302893295665843662000800476778967984382090797619859493646309380586336721469695975027968771205724996666980561453382074120315933770309949152746918356593762102220068126798273445760938020304479122774980917955938387121000588766689258448700470772552497060444652127130404321182610103591186476662963858495087448497373476861420880529443
Carmody argued, if the ruling that it’s illegal to do these things with the DeCSS software
holds up, then it’s also illegal to possess, transmit, or share
information about this prime number. It will become an illegal number. It would have to be redacted from websites, and whatever books it might appear in. People searching for new primes, or any other number, will have to worry about sharing them online, that they are on some list of illegal numbers somewhere. The lists will grow exponentially, as the precedent that this software is forbidden to possess or share, will lead others to demand that software, and numbers, they don’t care for be made illegal as well.
And then… I forget the rest. Whether it was finally ruled in the favor of common sense, or if the case simply petered out and nothing more was ever heard about it. I do know that no one was ever brought up on charges for possessing a number, and DeCSS has been widely available ever since the day it was first posted online (if you’ve ever used a movie ripping software like ffmpeg, you’ve used DeCSS or it’s descendents.)
More info. Also, this is now a crypto history blog, deal with it
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2al2rtC
via IFTTT
cipherface:
Between the time when the oceans drank Atlantis, and the rise of Silicon Valley, there was an age undreamed of…
Movies were sold on big reels of tape, wound up inside little plastic boxes.
And played on machines called VCRs.
And if you wanted to create a copy of a movie, you could hook two of these machines together and do it with no problem. In fact, it was ruled in a court of law that it was a fair use of someone elses copyrighted movie to make yourself an archival copy, so that if your tape broke, or the machine ‘ate it’ you wouldn’t have to buy another one.
Hollywood didn’t care for this.
So, when the digital age dawned, someone came up with the bright idea of selling movies on DVDs. And one of the big selling points, so far as Hollywood was concerned, was that you could encrypt the data of the movie on the disc, and put hardware to decrypt it in the DVD player, in such a way that it wouldn’t play if two DVD players were hooked together, and so that someone who put a DVD into a computer couldn’t copy it.
Techies and hackers didn’t care for this.
So, they started trying to figure out how to cryptanalyze the DVDs, which were encrypted with a tech called CSS, for Content Scrambling System. And they didn’t have much luck, because crypto is hard, and breaking it is harder. And then one day they caught a lucky break.
Some manufacturers of DVD players, from Taiwan iirc, put out a new product, one of which was bought by a hacker somewhere, who tinkered with it and realized that the makers had made a mistake. They hadn’t properly protected the chips that contained the CSS decryption key, which allowed this guy to get access to it and copy it. He then created a program called DeCSS, which would allow you to put a DVD in a computer and then ‘rip’ the data to your hard drive, then write it to another DVD. He posted it online, and within hours the news, and copies of the key and code, had spread all over the world.
Hollywood flipped their shit over this.
They brought the legal hammer down on this guy, and it ended up in court. He said he had a right, as per the previous Fair Use ruling, regarding VHS tapes, to copy DVDs as well. When people had previously complained that encryption was stripping them of their rights, Hollywood had argued that there was nothing in the law that said they had to make copying easy, and basically challenged them to figure out how to break it. In the court case, Hollywood argued that under a new law that had passed, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, it was illegal to circumvent an DRM, or Digital Rights Management system. The plaintiffs counter-argued that they hadn’t really reversed engineered anything, that the dumb machines had been built wrong, that they had a right to tinker with it and see how it worked.
So, sitting between these parties was a judge who… to put it kindly, was probably in over his head. Probably some old guy, the kind of guy who still owned a VCR with the clocking blinking 12:00 PM because he didn’t know how to adjust the time. An old grandpa sorta guy. Maybe not a bad guy, just clueless about how tech works. So, when Hollywood argued that there should be some sort of injunction against the spread of the DeCSS software online, that it should be illegal for people to host it, or for others to download it, or to tell people how it worked, or even to link to it, gramps said, “Sure, why not? Here you go, here’s an order that says it’s illegal to possess this software.”
Well, the tech people freaked out about this, because it contradicted a number of already established precedents. Like Phil Zimmermann publishing the source code of PGP and shipping the books containing it to Europe, despite the fact that the encryption tech it contained had been ruled a munition that couldn’t be sold overseas. The precedent, that code was speech, and therefore subject to first amendment protections, seemed to be being thwarted in the DeCSS case. And the tech/hacker community wanted to make it clear that they weren’t going to stand for that.
So, some bright person somewhere, went out and got himself a shirt made, that had the source code of DeCSS printed on it, along with some quote from the order basically saying that it was illegal to buy or own this shirt, then started selling them on his website. This clever idea opened a floodgate of people coming up with unique ways to spread the source code of DeCSS, in a way that was tempting the court to try to stop them, on the grounds that the ruling would then go to a higher court and be turned over on first amendment grounds.
“Take t5’s low byte(AND t5 with two hundredfifty five) to put it
in the ith byte ofthe vector called k. Now shiftt5 right eight bits;
store the result int5 again. Now that’s thelast step in the loop.
No sooner have wefinished that loop than we’ll startanother; no rest
for the wicked northose innocents whom lawyersserve with paperwork.”
Quote from a long haiku that gives step by step instructions for implementing DeCSS
One of these people, Phil Carmody, raised an interesting argument. He said that software is just numbers. In fact, every piece of software is a single number, that is also a infinite number of numbers (or practically so) as there are nearly an infinite number of mathematical conversions or encodings you can perform on a number. So he wrote a little script version of DeCSS, then converted it to a number, then started to look to see if this number was the same as another somewhere. Was it hidden somewhere in pi? Or the Golden Ratio? What if you doubled it? or added 1 to it?
And after some searching, he found a list of the largest known prime numbers, wherein the 19th largest prime that had been found by that time, was the same as his code for DeCSS. So he posted this info online, and said, “If you go to this website, take this prime number, and save it in a file, then compile it, the output is this piece of software that is illegal to possess, transmit, or share information about.” Here it is, by the way:
485650789657397829309841894694286137707442087351357924019652073668698513401047237446968797439926117510973777701027447528049058831384037549709987909653955227011712157025974666993240226834596619606034851742497735846851885567457025712547499964821941846557100841190862597169479707991520048667099759235960613207259737979936188606316914473588300245336972781813914797955513399949394882899846917836100182597890103160196183503434489568705384520853804584241565482488933380474758711283395989685223254460840897111977127694120795862440547161321005006459820176961771809478113622002723448272249323259547234688002927776497906148129840428345720146348968547169082354737835661972186224969431622716663939055430241564732924855248991225739466548627140482117138124388217717602984125524464744505583462814488335631902725319590439283873764073916891257924055015620889787163375999107887084908159097548019285768451988596305323823490558092032999603234471140776019847163531161713078576084862236370283570104961259568184678596533310077017991614674472549272833486916000647585917462781212690073518309241530106302893295665843662000800476778967984382090797619859493646309380586336721469695975027968771205724996666980561453382074120315933770309949152746918356593762102220068126798273445760938020304479122774980917955938387121000588766689258448700470772552497060444652127130404321182610103591186476662963858495087448497373476861420880529443
Carmody argued, if the ruling that it’s illegal to do these things with the DeCSS software
holds up, then it’s also illegal to possess, transmit, or share
information about this prime number. It will become an illegal number. It would have to be redacted from websites, and whatever books it might appear in. People searching for new primes, or any other number, will have to worry about sharing them online, that they are on some list of illegal numbers somewhere. The lists will grow exponentially, as the precedent that this software is forbidden to possess or share, will lead others to demand that software, and numbers, they don’t care for be made illegal as well.
And then… I forget the rest. Whether it was finally ruled in the favor of common sense, or if the case simply petered out and nothing more was ever heard about it. I do know that no one was ever brought up on charges for possessing a number, and DeCSS has been widely available ever since the day it was first posted online (if you’ve ever used a movie ripping software like ffmpeg, you’ve used DeCSS or it’s descendents.)
More info. Also, this is now a crypto history blog, deal with it
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2al2rtC
via IFTTT
determinedtomato:
sucymemebabaran:
coolthingoftheday:
The moon passed between NASA’s Deep Space Climate Observatory and the Earth, allowing the satellite to capture this rare image of the moon’s far side in full sunlight. As the moon is tidally locked to the Earth and doesn’t rotate, we only ever see the one face from the Earth. Awesome shot!
so basically this is the moon’s ass
if this is the moon’s ass could you say we’re getting
mooned
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2anOwDi
via IFTTT
sucymemebabaran:
coolthingoftheday:
The moon passed between NASA’s Deep Space Climate Observatory and the Earth, allowing the satellite to capture this rare image of the moon’s far side in full sunlight. As the moon is tidally locked to the Earth and doesn’t rotate, we only ever see the one face from the Earth. Awesome shot!
so basically this is the moon’s ass
if this is the moon’s ass could you say we’re getting
mooned
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2anOwDi
via IFTTT
boredpanda:
Details Of Short But Beautiful Summer In My Homeland Finland
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2a6X96l
via IFTTT
Details Of Short But Beautiful Summer In My Homeland Finland
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2a6X96l
via IFTTT
damalur:
Very briefly for followers who are less interested in comics: Brie Larson is reportedly in early talks to play Carol Danvers in the upcoming Captain Marvel movie. She’s currently 26 and will probably be 27-28 when the movie shoots. (For reference, the release date is set for March of 2019.)
There’s some very good discourse going around right now about the gender politics of casting a woman who is 26 against a group of largely male actors who are in their thirties, forties, and fifties. Don Cheadle and RDJ are both 51; Chris Evans is 34; Paul Rudd is 47. The counterargument I’m seeing most frequently is that Marvel is deliberately casting the new generation of Avengers young to get more years of filmmaking out of them, but that’s nonsense when at 39 Chadwick Boseman is one of the linchpins of the new phases of movies. (For comparison purposes, Elizabeth Olsen is 27. Scarlett Johansson is 31. Make no mistake, this is the same Hollywood gender policing as ever.)
Beyond that, there are some character-specific reasons why casting a young actress for Carol Danvers doesn’t make sense. When we first encounter her in the comics, Carol has already retired from the Air Force as a colonel, a rank typically attained in an officer’s mid- to late forties. By the time she makes the jump from Ms. Marvel (via Binary and Warbird and Ms. Marvel again) to Captain Marvel, she’d also worked as a security chief for NASA, a bestselling author, and the editor of a major publication, not to mention all the time she spent hanging around teams like the Avengers, the X-Men, and the Starjammers. Even taking the usual Marvel timeline weirdness into account, Carol is a woman with miles on her, and seeing her display the sort of confidence and competence that only experience grants is one of the things that makes her attractive to readers.
Movies offer an opportunity to streamline a character’s origin, and I suspect that whatever her age, a lot of Carol’s particulars are going to fall by the wayside when she makes the transition to the MCU. Her faculty as a writer and her work with various intelligence organizations while in the employ of the USAF will probably be the first things on the chopping block. Since 2012, when Kelly Sue DeConnick took over the character, the emphasis in Carol’s books has been absolutely on her background as a pilot and her love of flying. If Brie Larson or another young actress end up with the role, I don’t doubt that Carol will be an active-duty airman when she gets her powers.
I don’t have a problem with that at all, but I do think that by not casting a woman in her thirties or older, the powers that be are wasting a great opportunity to tell a story much more in line with the ideology surrounding Captain Marvel (which is, you know, that all women, regardless and sometimes because of their age, have stories worth telling).
Next up: rebooting Card Captor Sakura, only this time it’s babies!
I don’t know if I can express how worn this makes me. Sexism is bad enough, but ageism too? Seriously?
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2aEB7Zv
via IFTTT
Very briefly for followers who are less interested in comics: Brie Larson is reportedly in early talks to play Carol Danvers in the upcoming Captain Marvel movie. She’s currently 26 and will probably be 27-28 when the movie shoots. (For reference, the release date is set for March of 2019.)
There’s some very good discourse going around right now about the gender politics of casting a woman who is 26 against a group of largely male actors who are in their thirties, forties, and fifties. Don Cheadle and RDJ are both 51; Chris Evans is 34; Paul Rudd is 47. The counterargument I’m seeing most frequently is that Marvel is deliberately casting the new generation of Avengers young to get more years of filmmaking out of them, but that’s nonsense when at 39 Chadwick Boseman is one of the linchpins of the new phases of movies. (For comparison purposes, Elizabeth Olsen is 27. Scarlett Johansson is 31. Make no mistake, this is the same Hollywood gender policing as ever.)
Beyond that, there are some character-specific reasons why casting a young actress for Carol Danvers doesn’t make sense. When we first encounter her in the comics, Carol has already retired from the Air Force as a colonel, a rank typically attained in an officer’s mid- to late forties. By the time she makes the jump from Ms. Marvel (via Binary and Warbird and Ms. Marvel again) to Captain Marvel, she’d also worked as a security chief for NASA, a bestselling author, and the editor of a major publication, not to mention all the time she spent hanging around teams like the Avengers, the X-Men, and the Starjammers. Even taking the usual Marvel timeline weirdness into account, Carol is a woman with miles on her, and seeing her display the sort of confidence and competence that only experience grants is one of the things that makes her attractive to readers.
Movies offer an opportunity to streamline a character’s origin, and I suspect that whatever her age, a lot of Carol’s particulars are going to fall by the wayside when she makes the transition to the MCU. Her faculty as a writer and her work with various intelligence organizations while in the employ of the USAF will probably be the first things on the chopping block. Since 2012, when Kelly Sue DeConnick took over the character, the emphasis in Carol’s books has been absolutely on her background as a pilot and her love of flying. If Brie Larson or another young actress end up with the role, I don’t doubt that Carol will be an active-duty airman when she gets her powers.
I don’t have a problem with that at all, but I do think that by not casting a woman in her thirties or older, the powers that be are wasting a great opportunity to tell a story much more in line with the ideology surrounding Captain Marvel (which is, you know, that all women, regardless and sometimes because of their age, have stories worth telling).
Next up: rebooting Card Captor Sakura, only this time it’s babies!
I don’t know if I can express how worn this makes me. Sexism is bad enough, but ageism too? Seriously?
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2aEB7Zv
via IFTTT
mumblesbot:
jaythenerdkid:
weallheartonedirection:
The Rock
people ask why I cape so hard for him
this is why
i like how the rock asks the women he cares about if they’re happy. ive seen a story like this about his mom where he asked if she was happy. it’s just a nice thing to ask a woman, i think.
I live in a neighborhood with a large population of Samoan, Tongan, Pinoy, Hawaiian population. Laaarge population. Love it, love them, love where I live.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2ahjoUq
via IFTTT
jaythenerdkid:
weallheartonedirection:
The Rock
people ask why I cape so hard for him
this is why
i like how the rock asks the women he cares about if they’re happy. ive seen a story like this about his mom where he asked if she was happy. it’s just a nice thing to ask a woman, i think.
I live in a neighborhood with a large population of Samoan, Tongan, Pinoy, Hawaiian population. Laaarge population. Love it, love them, love where I live.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2ahjoUq
via IFTTT