His comment about people using this to do web development, run physics simulations and the rest were also equally stupid. Also there was no "strawman" involved. You can say I selectively quoted only pieces I wanted to respond to but that does not constitute a strawman.
Psshaw! Not everyone is going to buy a console PC. Are you for real?
Of course not since this is an overpriced system just like all Alienware systems.
And how exactly are they going to muscle in when the configuration mentioned in the summary and article is nearly $1900? You realize you could buy either a PS4, the motion-tracking bullshit, additional controllers or an Xbox One and extra controllers plus dozens of full-priced games for less than the Alienware, right? Yeah, I can totally see it stealing sales away. Oh wait....
All that digital manipulation to make it look like film always looks artificial. It's easy to spot the difference between something actually shot from film with true film grain over artificial grain added to digital. Same with the other "filmic" processing that, for example, the BBC does. So, no, there is still a quality to film that cannot be perfectly replicated yet because it wad perfectly replicated it wouldn't be so easy to spot filmic post-processing done to digital content. And that is why some people still do prefer it.
Not necessarily true. Digital shots even against high quality film will be cleaner than film at equivalent sensitivity. Grain will always be more apparent from a film shot.
But vmware needs VT-d to function, and if they kill this feature off, it won't work.
Bullshit. Even ESX/ESXi can work just fine without VT-d. The only thing you lose is I/O pass-through. Cut out the hyperbole. The fact that you can explicitly disable VT-d in VMWare's settings disproves your ridiculous claims.
So these professors should check their contracts before signing them.
Well, yes, that is the entire point of this story...
The AAUP plans this year to undertake a campaign to urge professors to get protections of their intellectual-property rights included in their contracts and faculty handbooks.
You can relicense a work you do not hold the copyright to, if the copyright owner had granted you that right, and only to the degree that the copyright owner allows.
And how would the copyright owner have granted you that if there is no license? Or did you not actually bother to understand the context of my answer?
This is in fact more common than you'd think, relicensing BSD code under GPL or commercial licenses happens quite often.
Yes, but the situation you speak of has no relation to the context of what is being discussed which is unlicensed works on Github where the copyright owner has not granted you ANYTHING.
Kerckhoffs' Principle is just one half of the decision process. Just because security does not require that something be kept secret, it doesn't mean that it is automatically smart to publicize it. There are two characteristics that make publication so powerful in cryptography. One, there is a large group of people who are capable and willing to evaluate cryptographic systems, and publishing is a way to harness the expertise of those people. And two, there are others who need to build cryptographic systems and are on the same side, so everyone can learn from the mistakes of others. If cryptography did not have these characteristics, there would be no benefit in publishing.
Missile guidance algorithms is another example. Would the government be better off publishing their algorithms for guiding missiles? I believe the answer is no, because the system lacks the second characteristic above. There isn't a large community of people who can benefit from the information, but there are potential enemies that could benefit from the information. Therefore, it is better for the government to keep the information classified and only disclose it to those it believes should know.
Oh and:
Because the secrecy requirements for security are rarely black and white, publishing now becomes a security trade-off. Does the security benefit of secrecy outweigh the benefits of publication? It might not be easy to make the decision, but the decision is straightforward. Historically, the NSA did not publish its cryptographic details -- not because their secrecy improved security, but because they did not want to give their Cold-War-world enemies the benefit of their expertise.
Basically you have no place lecturing about security practices.
Nope, not legally. Code is automatically copyrighted in any Berne signatory country. You can not relicense a work that you do not hold the copyright to.
Oh and to add further he even states later in the article:
Missile guidance algorithms is another example. Would the government be better off publishing their algorithms for guiding missiles? I believe the answer is no, because the system lacks the second characteristic above. There isn't a large community of people who can benefit from the information, but there are potential enemies that could benefit from the information. Therefore, it is better for the government to keep the information classified and only disclose it to those it believes should know.
Basically, yes, you should have the least amount of secrets possible for a security system, but this does not mean that you publicize every single secret about the system.
Obscurity is a perfectly valid layer of security as long as the security mechanism's integrity is not based solely on that obscurity. Just because certain information can be made public about a security system without damaging its integrity as a whole does not mean you necessarily should make that information public. Bruce Schneier even says so himself:
Kerckhoffs' Principle is just one half of the decision process. Just because security does not require that something be kept secret, it doesn't mean that it is automatically smart to publicize it.
Yeah it's easy to point out numerous examples of politically-oriented spying by the government. But ignore all that because they double pinky swear they won't do it now!
Slashdot Mirror
His comment about people using this to do web development, run physics simulations and the rest were also equally stupid. Also there was no "strawman" involved. You can say I selectively quoted only pieces I wanted to respond to but that does not constitute a strawman.
Psshaw! Not everyone is going to buy a console PC. Are you for real?
Of course not since this is an overpriced system just like all Alienware systems.
For most people a computer is a tool and/or appliance not a penis extension.
And how exactly are they going to muscle in when the configuration mentioned in the summary and article is nearly $1900? You realize you could buy either a PS4, the motion-tracking bullshit, additional controllers or an Xbox One and extra controllers plus dozens of full-priced games for less than the Alienware, right? Yeah, I can totally see it stealing sales away. Oh wait....
What is bullshit? Film and digital have distinct looks and their own artifacts. Claiming that film does not look distinct is the only bullshit.
Yes some do. But those artifacts are actually real and measurable unlike the phony quality claims made over ridiculously priced cables.
Replicated to a degree. It still looks artificially processed and not like real film.
All that digital manipulation to make it look like film always looks artificial. It's easy to spot the difference between something actually shot from film with true film grain over artificial grain added to digital. Same with the other "filmic" processing that, for example, the BBC does. So, no, there is still a quality to film that cannot be perfectly replicated yet because it wad perfectly replicated it wouldn't be so easy to spot filmic post-processing done to digital content. And that is why some people still do prefer it.
I wasn't making a quality judgement. Simply stating that it is not ad hard to spot the difference as the person claimed.
Not necessarily true. Digital shots even against high quality film will be cleaner than film at equivalent sensitivity. Grain will always be more apparent from a film shot.
Film does have a distinct look that digital doesn't. It is nothing akin to ridiculous audiophile claims.
But vmware needs VT-d to function, and if they kill this feature off, it won't work.
Bullshit. Even ESX/ESXi can work just fine without VT-d. The only thing you lose is I/O pass-through. Cut out the hyperbole. The fact that you can explicitly disable VT-d in VMWare's settings disproves your ridiculous claims.
You think AMD is any threat to Intel? They stopped having any real competitive pressure on Intel years ago.
Since when is transactional memory is a mass consumer feature? Next to no one will notice or care.
AMD hasn't been real competition to Intel for quite some years now. Though the fanboi butthurt would be amusing.
So these professors should check their contracts before signing them.
Well, yes, that is the entire point of this story...
The AAUP plans this year to undertake a campaign to urge professors to get protections of their intellectual-property rights included in their contracts and faculty handbooks.
Technically, that's wrong.
No, it's not.
You can relicense a work you do not hold the copyright to, if the copyright owner had granted you that right, and only to the degree that the copyright owner allows.
And how would the copyright owner have granted you that if there is no license? Or did you not actually bother to understand the context of my answer?
This is in fact more common than you'd think, relicensing BSD code under GPL or commercial licenses happens quite often.
Yes, but the situation you speak of has no relation to the context of what is being discussed which is unlicensed works on Github where the copyright owner has not granted you ANYTHING.
Well, yes. As I pointed out in another post, it is always a trade off and not a black-and-white choice like the parrots I responded to claim.
No, what they plan to do is prevent the university's from claiming copyright on the coursework that they created.
Obfuscation always has a place in security. Do you tell everyone your passwords? Do you give away your private signing key?
How now! Don't bring facts to the conversation and ruin his parroted misunderstanding of what "security through obscurity" means.
So then Bruce Schneier has no place in security?
Kerckhoffs' Principle is just one half of the decision process. Just because security does not require that something be kept secret, it doesn't mean that it is automatically smart to publicize it. There are two characteristics that make publication so powerful in cryptography. One, there is a large group of people who are capable and willing to evaluate cryptographic systems, and publishing is a way to harness the expertise of those people. And two, there are others who need to build cryptographic systems and are on the same side, so everyone can learn from the mistakes of others. If cryptography did not have these characteristics, there would be no benefit in publishing.
Missile guidance algorithms is another example. Would the government be better off publishing their algorithms for guiding missiles? I believe the answer is no, because the system lacks the second characteristic above. There isn't a large community of people who can benefit from the information, but there are potential enemies that could benefit from the information. Therefore, it is better for the government to keep the information classified and only disclose it to those it believes should know.
Oh and:
Because the secrecy requirements for security are rarely black and white, publishing now becomes a security trade-off. Does the security benefit of secrecy outweigh the benefits of publication? It might not be easy to make the decision, but the decision is straightforward. Historically, the NSA did not publish its cryptographic details -- not because their secrecy improved security, but because they did not want to give their Cold-War-world enemies the benefit of their expertise.
Basically you have no place lecturing about security practices.
Nope, not legally. Code is automatically copyrighted in any Berne signatory country. You can not relicense a work that you do not hold the copyright to.
Oh and to add further he even states later in the article:
Missile guidance algorithms is another example. Would the government be better off publishing their algorithms for guiding missiles? I believe the answer is no, because the system lacks the second characteristic above. There isn't a large community of people who can benefit from the information, but there are potential enemies that could benefit from the information. Therefore, it is better for the government to keep the information classified and only disclose it to those it believes should know.
Basically, yes, you should have the least amount of secrets possible for a security system, but this does not mean that you publicize every single secret about the system.
Obscurity is a perfectly valid layer of security as long as the security mechanism's integrity is not based solely on that obscurity. Just because certain information can be made public about a security system without damaging its integrity as a whole does not mean you necessarily should make that information public. Bruce Schneier even says so himself:
Kerckhoffs' Principle is just one half of the decision process. Just because security does not require that something be kept secret, it doesn't mean that it is automatically smart to publicize it.
From: http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0205.html#1
Yeah it's easy to point out numerous examples of politically-oriented spying by the government. But ignore all that because they double pinky swear they won't do it now!