How exactly do you fry an ebook?

A demonstration for you:
1) Purchase Kindle
2) Purchase and download 1000 ebooks to Kindle
3) Throw kindle into incinerator
4) Purchase new Kindle and click "Sync"
5) 1000 ebooks "magically" appear on new kindle and more remarkable show no signs of fire damage.

What is pathetically is the reading comprehension fail you displayed.

Short version this is a story about a Japanese woman who lives in Japan.

who would get "idiot americans" from that.... Well only an idiot!

Nope. The AV engine is exactly the same between free and pro.

Pro simply allows:
* longer licenses (free license expires after year and must be renewed)
* scripting protection
* ability to sandbox applications (most useful for browsers)

Other than that they are identical in both functionality and interface. I used Avast free for couple years and after version 5 purchase pro version mainly to support the company rather than any value in the added features of pro. They make good software and I want to support that. The multi computer multi year license works out to less than a dollar per month per computer. Hard to beat that.

SDXC supports exFAT. Some HD camcorders support it, however many sadly still only support FAT32.

"A better interum solution would be to fill the 4GB file size, increment the filename by one, and keep going. I don't understand why they don't do that... it would be a simple firmware fix."

At least a couple Sony camcorders do this (have done so for a couple years). If you do some research though you can find one that supports exFAT on SDXC and no need for workaround hacks.

95MP ~60MB Raw file size.

That is roughly 33,000 shots on a 2TB card.

I don't know many photographers who would be saying damn I have to change my memory card after 33,000 photos.
Even in specialized niche (say automated camera taking 1 shot per second of stars thats roughly 9 hours of capacity.

Anyone claiming 2TB isn't good enough for "pro" equipment is full of shit.

2TB = 30,000 to 180,000 high resolution shots (10 to 60MP)

2TB = 24 hours of uncompressed 1080p uncompressed @ 24fps, 36bit deep color (1920 x 1080 x 36 x 24 / 8 / 1000 ./1000) =223 MBps

Except it won't be. In 2020 Disney will lobby to extend copyright to 100+ lifetime and then 150+lifetime then 500 + lifetime and each time Congress will roll over. They have 4 times in the past. There is no evidence to indicate that 70+lifetime creates any more incentive than 27 years do. Steven King would still be very rich under 28 year copyright system. A no name author is going to be extremely poor under 28, lifetime+70, lifetime + 700, or infinite copyright.

Eventually "public domain" will mean works created prior to 1900. Period. Everything else will be owned and owned forever. Even works that are nearly worthless will simply be bought up pennies on the dollar by copyright troll companies (looking for future lawsuit when they can claim movie x is a derived work from their long since forgotten title).

Um just because an author has titles on amazon isn't exactly a definitive proof that it is under copyright.

I submit Edgar Allen Poe. - 214 titles

http://www.amazon.com/Edgar-Allan-Poe/e/B000APVRP2/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

The larger issue isn't profitability the issue is accessibility. Still the law is the law. PG shouldn't be breaking the law. However we desperately need copyright reform. Lifetime + 70 is insane. If Disney has its way it will be extended to lifetime+120 in 2034. Then it will be lifetime +200, then lifetime +500, then lifetime + 1000. Essentially public domain will be fixed at items created prior to Disney. The concept of a copyright was never the intent of copyright to provide a infinite supply of revenue from a single work. The idea was to provide ENOUGH protection to encourage people to create works. I find it hard to believe that nobody will write a book, paint a painting, or make a movie unless they have complete control over it for 70 years + their lifetime. I would be willing to wage if copyright was returned to the original 14 years + a single filed 14 year extension we would still see works being created.

Nope. Making a complete "backup" of a book doesn't fall under fair use. PG simply making a digital copy to put in the PG vault (for release in 20xx) would be a violation of copyright. Stupid but that is the reality of our utterly broken copyright system.

The only exemption for making a backup is computer software. Not books, not movies, not ebooks, not any other form of copyrighted material.

One can make a partial copy (for example photocopying pages from a reference manual) which technically is a violation of copyright but falls under fair use protection but fair use doesn't extend to complete copy except in the case of computer software.

What makes it even worse is that DMCA will in the future make even the creation of archiving tools a crime. Say in 80 years there is an interest for PG but for movies. Someone making software to break encryption on movies would have a legitimate use however DMCA doesn't provide any carve-out for legitimate use and thus the software would be prohibited and creators and distributors in violation of the law.

We have in the span of less than a century turned a wonderful idea; providing LIMITED protection to content creators to encourage such content into something that now only holds back innovation. Pathetic. In 2034 Mickey Mouse will go into public domain. In 2030 Disney will lobby (and if the past 3 times are any indication win) to extend copyrights to 120 years after death of author. Then in another 50 years they will do it again and again and again and again.

Essentially the pool of public domain works will never grow because companies will never allow their "property" to become public domain. Even marginal works have some value. Companies can simply buy up copyrights for negligible amounts hoping that some future work will be derived from it and sue for compensation. The copyright equivalent of patent trolls.

Anyone can sue anyone for virtually anything. I could sue you for providing a misleading anecdote. I almost certainly would lose however I could file a lawsuit.

Lawyers filing a lawsuit. How utterly shocking.

Last time I checked the school offers no guarantees that you won't be required to retake tests. I doubt the lawsuit went anywhere.

Agreed. There is no secret key known. I mistaken on how handshake in WPA2 works.

However that doesn't mean that future protocol (say WPA3) couldn't use public key securely.

Essentially imagine an SSL like implementation to authenticate and securely exchange keys but for AP instead.

Client requests session from AP.
AP returns public key cert (could be self signed but also could be CA signed for an organization like starbucks).

For self signed certs you woudld still have the issue of MitM. For CA signed certs the client verifies the AP cert if valid and signed by a trusted CA. Thus client has at least some assurance it is talking to the "real" starbucks AP.

Client creates a random session key and also a public/private keypair.

Client encrypts everything w/ AP public key and transmits to AP.

Now all traffic is encrypted w/ securely shared session key.

However that would require something beyond what the article indicates. I was mistaken on the keyshare in WPA2. With Eve knowing passphrase it would be very simple to force a session disconnect and then capture the handshake.

I stand correctly looks like you are right.

We really need a public/private key based WPA3.

i.e.
access point has public/private keypair.
Client creates session key (symetric) and encrypts it w/ AP public key. client also creates its own public/private keypair and sends the public key.

This way
1) session key can only be determined by AP (or anyone w/ private key)
2) AP can use client public key to authenticate traffic from the client (client will encrypt traffic w/ session key but also sign traffic w/ client private key).
3) For public AP the public/private key could be signed by a CA. Thus assumming CA chain isn't compromised a user would have some level of certainty that they are indeed connecting to "starbbucks AP" and that only that AP can decrypt traffic.

Then have the handshake protected by public/private key encryption.

As mentioned up thread. It likely would require a new standard (like say WPA3).

Each AP in would have a private/public keypair.
1) Client queries AP for session
2) AP sends public key to client
3) Client generates a random session key (symetric encryption)
4) Client encrypts session key w/ AP PUBLIC KEY
5) Client sends encrypted session key to AP
6) At this point even an intercepted session key could only be decrypted by the AP (or someone w/ AP private key).

No you wouldn't. The AP would have a public/private key pair not a physical password.

So each AP is given a psuedo random pubic/private key pair. Hell you could even design the router on reboot to randomly generate a new public/private key pair.

Now a new user tries to connect to the AP. The AP sends it public key to the user (in plain text) as part of the handshake process.
The user computer generated a unique session keys and encrypts it with the public key of the AP. The encrypted packet is sent to AP.
Now only the AP can decrypt the message to get the session key. So even someone "sniffing" the handshake couldn't determine the session key without breaking (or knowing) AP private key.

No "passwords" written down are needed. Just simply have each router configured at the factory w/ a psuedo random public/private key pair (or designed to generate one on hard reboot). Router could even be configured to accept a custom keypair. Paranoid users could have router randomly generate a new keypair at set intervals.

For "public" AP it could be improved by combining it w/ CA. So all starbucks AP would have a signed key pair.
1) User knows (assuming CA hasn't been spoofed) that they are talking to a "real" starbucks AP
2) Only starbucks AP can decrypt the session key.

Wrong.

While WPA2 uses a shared passphrase it doesn't use a shared encryption key.

All connected clients to the access point have unique session keys. If you know the passphrase you can connected and decrypt YOUR OWN TRAFFIC but that doesn't enable you to decrypt any OTHER CLIENTS because they will be using different session keys.