There's no such thing as an implicit license granted under copyright law. Where does this idea come from? It simply has no similarity with reality.

When you purchase an object which contains copyrighted content, you purchased that object. Full stop, end of story. No license is involved.

You don't need a license to use an object which contains copyrighted content. That's why there is no license in the picture. Not implicit, not explicit. You can do anything you want with that object and with that content so long as it is not forbidden by copyright. You can burn it. You can watch it 50 times in a row while eating hot dogs. You can make seven different copies, one for each day of the week. You can shift it to a different format so you can watch it elsewhere.

What you cannot do is distribute copies on a large scale or carry out a public performance of this content. Unless the copyright holder gives you permission, of course. But all the rest is simply permitted by default, because it's not forbidden. No licenses in sight.

Well, Debian is still worse, because that severely compromised a lot of systems, whereas all Nintendo's checks do is prevent people from running the software they want on hardware they own.

But still, hilarious!

It would be respectable (probably) but not very surprising. RSA implementations have been broken many times before, by holes ranging from exotica like power-consumption attacks (figure out the secret key by watching how much electricity the system consumes at any given moment) to utter foolishness like the Debian random seeding fiasco. One advantage the hackers have going for them is that there's huge cost pressure on these consumer electronics and this can cause the hardware manufacturers to skimp on good implementations. For example, the way you protect against timing or power-consumption attacks is to deliberately waste time and power while performing the algorithm, and a hardware manufacturer may not want to do that.

You're buying a physical object. You aren't buying a license, and you don't have any kind of license. (For the obvious proof of this, try to find the text of the license. You can't, because there isn't one.)

Now it just so happens that the content on that physical object is protected by copyright. Copyright law places various restrictions on what you can do with that content.

Under old-style copyright law it is illegal to make copies of that content beyond the bounds of fair use. So no ripping the DVD to other DVDs and selling them on the street corner. On the other hand making a backup copy for yourself is fine. Making a copy for your friend, that gets a little fuzzy, but probably not fine. (Fair use is not very well defined.)

However that content is scrambled as a copy-protection measure and the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass that scrambling. So if you use any ripper then you're breaking the law. (Unless you have a rare unscrambled DVD, in which case it's fine, so long as you stay within the bounds of traditional copyright.) However it is legal to, say, point a camera at your screen and make a copy that way. But what you do with that copy had better stay within the bounds of copyright law.

In short, you're not paying for a license, but you're not free to do what you please with the physical object you're buying either.

I don't buy it. A global crack would merely look so much like a real player that the BD+ program couldn't tell the difference. It seems that this is tricky to do, but at least in theory there's nothing that says it can't be done.

You mean you can't point a camera at your TV and record the movie? Wow. How'd they manage to pull that off?

Wrong.

If you think you're right, then prove it. Produce the text of the license.

Don't care if he's right or wrong. Phrases like "insane amount of terror" when describing an online gaming system are ridiculous and indicate that this person is mentally unwell.

Going purely by memory, I believe it happened at least twice. Once was a government program as you say, with the goal of seeing just how much information could be gleaned from publicly available information. And this was in the 60s sometime, so you can bet that it has become vastly easier since then. The other was some sort of undergraduate project done independently, although it commanded the instant attention of government officials once they discovered what he had done.

Nuclear weapons simply are not that difficult to produce for a country that really wants them. If South Africa could produce them in the 1980s and North Korea could produce them in the 2000s then this should be pretty clear.

We can take some comfort in the fact that producing a bomb small enough to be practical to deliver is a whole lot harder, and hopefully this added difficulty means that they will be controlled by people rational enough to realize that their own survival will suffer if they ever use them.

Trouble is, I don't want to suckle at anybody's teat, I just don't want them suckling at mine.

And even if becoming politically active is the way to go just for that, it appears to be impossible without selling your soul to one of the hopelessly corrupt mainstream political parties.

You had better if you're interested in an honest evaluation of the technologies!

I assure you that the information is available, however I can't tell you where it is. My recommendation would be to find some friendly nuclear engineers and ask them where to find out. They work with this stuff all the time so they will certainly know the facts and where to obtain the facts.

It's because people confuse "playing it safe" with "sticking with what I know".

Fact is, coal kills more people than nuclear ever has, and far more people than nuclear is ever likely to in the future. (Consider that if you exclude shoddily built and horribly mismanaged Warsaw Pact nuclear plants from the equation, not a single person has ever died in a civilian nuclear power plant accident.)

But people know coal, and they don't know nuclear, so they think that the existing coal plans are the "safe" option, and building new unfamiliar nuclear plants is the "unsafe" option.

If you're worried about safety and saving lives, go nuclear!

Another victim of Islamic terror!

So you're saying that if we were to take nuclear waste and dump it into smokestacks so that it got dispersed all over the country that the entire problem would be solved? Brilliant!