DRM, in some aspects - trusted computing - can be a positive thing.
My ideal system would have a root key I can set, that without software signed by it, it is a rock.
No, trusted computing is pointless. Let me explain: Exploits are caused by bugs in your software, even if signed and encrypted if the bugs exist that allow stack smashing or heap pointer overwrites (buffer overruns) then your signed and encrypted "trusted computing" can end up actually being a remote code execution vulnerability. See also: Return oriented programming.
Now perhaps you could brick your machine if the boot sector's been tampered with, but why would an exploit writer bother when they can just re-infect the machine after booting it up? So, If they can't make 100% secure OS's then your Trusted Computing (DRM) is pointless. Ah, but if they COULD make 100% secure OS's then Trusted Computing would be pointless... there wouldn't be any way to exploit it.
What you've got with trusted computing is simply raising the bar for normal folks to get alternate OSs installed, that and severe brain damage.
if any architecture designer from the early 1990's were frozen in a block of ice, thawed out today and then shown the ARMv8 ISA, he would never in a million years call it "RISC"
Perhaps not, they'd be dead, yes? However, if instead of frozen in ice they were merely kept alive for two short decades...
But did I file a patent on it? NO. Why not? Because there was nothing novel in what I did.
Yep, I do the same thing. The idea of patents is inherently flawed deeply in many aspects; One of which is that the examiners are expected to funnel the entire world of innovation through their tiny minds in a tiny window of time. Sadly, they can't even effectively search their own patent databases despite the fact that the technology to do so exist... To say nothing of the world wide web -- THAT is our "unpatentable prior art database" and should be where they search for prior art, but they don't.
If you don't apply for a patent for everything you do then it doesn't exist to the patent office. This means all innovation, even minor iterative and obvious innovations must pay the patent tax even if they don't infringe any current patents in order to ensure they won't be sued for using their own creations later (regardless if the suit has merit, it will cost you more than patent fees). Thus, Patents stifle innovation.
"That's a nice innovation you've got there, be terrible if something happened to it, why we could accidentally grant the patent to someone else and you might get dragged into a huge legal mess." Patent Protection Money, heh.
The patent office of course can not hire experts in every single field.
No, the way it should work is that to get your patent approved you must pay for the patent office to hire two independent 3rd party groups who are individuals skilled in the art -- The first group you ask: "Is this obvious and why", the second you ask, "I have this specific problem and I want you to try to solve it", e.g., "Come up with a solution for wireless charging at greater distances". If the first group shows them the patent is obvious then that's it's not patentable. If the second group comes up with a similar solution to the original patent then the application is denied.
I can hear it now, "That's too expensive!" No, the applicant foots the damn bill. Look, we pity the patent examiners because they're overworked while moronically ignoring the fucking answer: raise the cost of patents applications to cover the damn cost it takes to get good examination. Granting monopolies over using ideas that come to individuals ordinarily skilled in the arts when when tasked with the same problem cost FAR MORE to all the world's "innovators" than a measly couple of think tanks. The disparity between hundreds of dollars to apply for patents and millions to invalidate patents should tell you the system is designed to fuck over the little guy they claim to help protect.
Anything you, or I can come up with that improves on their method is also not in violation of the patent.
Well, that's wrong. If I patent removing expired timestamped hash table keys while traversing them during a lookup operation, and you patent the same thing but also after removing the keys you add them to a "free list" then that's the very definition of "infringing" my patent. Improving on someone's method while their patent is valid is an infringement. This means patents stifle innovation. DERP!
OSs are irrelevant. Cross platform everything is the bright future. There is no place for companies like Microsoft or their vendor lock-in strategies. They signed their own death warrant, it's only a matter of time now.
Of course, convincing people to use an operating system that made all of its trade-offs against ease-of-use, backwards compatibility, features, and stability may end being even harder than writing it.
Nah, it's not hard to convince people that matter to use the operating system. Or, rather, I should say that shouldn't be a goal to get mainstream adoption. I too am creating a secruity focused operating system from scratch -- Uses separate isloated call stacks rather than place data and code pointers in the same stack, and some other tricks to keep code pointers in heap data structures from being modified. My design calls for a different compilable programming language other than C as a base because C's essentially designed to do shit the most insecure way possible -- Hell, x86 even has ENTER and LEAVE instructions specifically to facilitate doing bad things faster, so doing safer things is slightly less performant. Once I've finished implementing my programming language I'll be able to implement a C compiler with it that utilizes the other language's features -- eg: functions are just a special case of coroutines... Then I can compile much of the stuff people expect in an OS, like existing drivers for their hardware, not just for mine.
Now, I know I'm pretty much the only one who's going to use my OS and my programming language, but my goal isn't adoption, it's to prove a point: You CAN make much more secure OSs that protects against many programming pitfals. Remember when the Internet was 1st built and how all the services were open and everyone was essetially trusted to be good guys -- network admins would only close ports if they detected some trouble there? Now an admin would be fired for such practices. Now we have firewalls by default and only let throught stuff that we know is good... Our OS's are still like that old trust everything model. We've made a few advances, but we're still just patching troubel spots. We still TRUST THE MODIFIABLE PARAMETER STACK TO CONTAIN CODE POINTERS. Ugh, I feel like I'm still in the 80s when it comes to OS security. GCC has an option to place a canary value to try and catch some overruns, but it's just like closing one more port because we saw some trouble there -- it does nothing if the exploit knows how to write over a canary with itself or exploits code pointers on the heap. We need to go back to the drawing board. Seriously. For fuck's sake people: I'm all for avoiding needless re-inventing of the wheel, but you don't put steel banded wooden waggon wheels on a damn Porche, that's assinine and UNSAFE.
I don't think for a second that everyone's going to start using my OS even if it's uncrackable. No, instead I only with to show folks how it can be done, by example. My aim is more of a reference implementation of techniques that other mainstream OSs can analyize and apply to improve their security. Eg: In no event does a buffer overrun, stack smashing, or any other unintended data modification cause unexpected or arbitrary code execution in my OS... This stuff is easy, It's not brain science, but we've got a lot of time invested in doing things the wrong way -- Popping the CODE pointer off the same stack we put our working DATA in, and running wherever it says to. It would be funny if it weren't so fucking moronic.
There's no reason that today's OSs can't have a whole host of security enhancing techniques except that when some unknown dude, or even a well respected fellow, pops into a compiler or OS discussion and points out how everything is all wrong everywhere, then folks just laugh at you, bugs crawling all over their faces, but they can't feel them anymore -- They'll argue that it's not worth fixing while neck deep in someone's dumpped core sewage, or they'll outright deny there's anything wrong as a family of cockroaches crawl from their nostrials and into their ears. These people have lived wallowing in the shit with the bugs for so long they don't even flinch. To me, it's just disgusti
It boggles the mind that from this one sample scientists think they know when, how, and where life can and can't form in the universe.
It's elementary my dear Watson... That is to say, it's all about the elements we see, and their known properties, and energy levels at which reactions occur. Sure there may be outliers somewhere but they, by definition, are pretty far out there.
Turns out that binary star systems are a lot more common than we once thought. In a binary star system, when a white dwarf eats another yellow star it starts producing lithium, and other heavier elements -- When it gets up to iron, it's game over. BLAM Type 1-A supernova. That's the most common supernova there is, and one of these is likely responsible for making all the elements floating around our sun. Furthermore, our sun seems to be pretty damn average. Additionally, rocky iron core planets are probably pretty damn common too. When you think of it like that, that tons of similar ovens are baking the same ingredients at around the same temperatures, then it's less of trying to find life exactly like our own, and more of looking for signs of the chemistry we know happens in a very common type of life baking oven -- Indeed, the kind that produced us. Our planet's not some really off the wall special place, so we're not special either. A puddle might think that its hole was perfectly designed just for it to fit in, but the reality is you make a divot, add water, you got a puddle... If we were looking for puddles we'd try to locate places where the temps are right to have liquid water. It's the same sort of thing for finding life.
That doesn't mean that there's no metal based life with mercury for blood and live the most brutal places, but it's a hell of a lot more likely that it'll be Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen that run alien life. Also, when you ( bake / cool / repeat ) the basic ingredients plentifully found on our planet eventually you discover amino acids form. The first self replicating chain of which will quickly dominate the other randomly joined chains by tearing them up to make copies -- a few imperfect copies, and you've got competition and evolution. Hell, the exact same thing happens in my automata experiments where little dots can randomly attract or repel -- Run the sim for a few months and you get some forming chains, then replication, and competition and evolution -- "Life" starts happening in my RAM. The parameters for the attraction and repulsion and boding co-efficients have to be right or nothing happens though... It's chemistry 101. There's no reason to remain boggled at all; Read up.
Some people find interacting with other humans more time-worthy than playing with theoretical constructs in your head alone.
Some people are capable of converting the theoretical constructs in their heads into concrete applications that others can then utilize. I can imagine anything and make it occur within a general purpose computer, then share that construct directly with others -- Perhaps you see this as a lesser form of socialization, when in reality it's no different to me than "speaking" is to you. --or-- Do you dispute that some humans are more worthy of interaction with than others?
Furthermore I find your statement ironic in that your concept of socialization is merely a protocol for the exchange of mental constructs between peoples heads alone. Personally, I value a one to many protocol whereby my mental constructs become persistent additions to culture as a whole vs the one to one or one to few transient mode of interaction you so cherish. It's even more strange that you would make such a statement via a world-changing information exchange system that was once merely a theoretical construct in someone's head...
What you mistake as a lack of social skills is my desire not to pollute my mind with the useless drivel you want to talk about. If that's not normal, then maybe I just don't want to play at being a "good person". I have no desire to be overly social with most humans. There is a big difference between not doing something by choice, and not being able to do something. I socialize quite well with those I wish to. The ones who would like to be social but can't still have an "excuse". Me? I've never made an excuse for not caring about what you think -- Why should I care if you've never given me a reason to? What's odd is the value you humans give to efforts that only result in the needless wasting of your very short lives.
I see no problem since habits are now addictions. Play games? Videogame Addiction. Write code for fun and profit? Meet: code addiction. RSS user? Meet: RRS - Repeated Refresh Syndrome.
I think they should put a warning up for people, that by downloading and compiling the code you could be in violation of the law,
By analogy, this would be like the artist putting up a track for download and saying it's illegal to listen to.
That's a bad analogy. A better one: The musician puts up a track for download and the opening lyrics are: "Copy Right To Thou Sand Twelve, Buy Thee Music Making Elve." -- Or better yet, have RMS crank out a new GPL-ish license for Music (in the same vein as GNU Free Document License), and the artist sings that at the beginning of the song.
Oh -- oh! No, no... Just have them break into the Free Software Song for one of the Choruses, OR make heavy use of the BSD style "decrescendo" license.
(The analogy here is embedding a copyright notice in the music)
P.S. No, wait! I got it! If you play the song backward at half speed, the Father of Copyright Law speaks the license!
DRM may not stop piracy, but there are many people out there who aren't outright looking to pirate things. These are casual users like my mother who has tons of silly little puzzle and mind type games that she buys for a few bucks. Her friend comes over and wants a copy and she gives it to them thinking nothing of it. Low and behind it doesn't work. It's a $5 game so nobody really cares. DRM isn't about the hard core pirating community in a fully electronic world. It's about discouraging the casual user who primarily passes around physical media around.
Then there's folks who set out to make a cheesy puzzle game, or color matching tetromino game, primarily to test some engine feature on the road to greater games. They might think, hey, maybe people would like to pay me for this game? Why don't I start a Kickstarter, IndieGoGo, or some other crowdsourcing campaign for the game, and if it gets $DEV_COST then I release the game for $0.00 (FREE), because, you know, they already paid me to make it. Thus OBLITERATING "Piracy". When my employer at my day job pays me for my time, not for each xcopy of the source code... You can't "pirate" a game if I won't make it unless you pay first.
After that's successful, Then they might even think: "Hey that was neat! Why don't I just get the public to fund my development costs / profit and just give games away for the cost it takes to make them?! Hey, the only thing different is that I'm working for YOU the CONSUMERS directly and not the Publishing Leaches that mark the price up to all hell after they paid for the work to be done once -- Playing Game Studio Lottery, and firing everyone if their bets were off." Why, that could even lead to a stable job just DOING WORK, and GETTING PAID FOR IT, instead of trying to use some stupid method of legalized artificial scarcity to push sales. Know what? Hell, looks like it even gets you Market Research for FREE. Unfunded projects keep you from wasting time on shit no one will buy, and funded ones let you focus on stuff people actually care about.
DRM isn't about ANYTHING other than artificial scarcity of bits that are in infinite supply for the purpose of Gambling with Developer's Livelihoods. This is the Information Age, Publishers and their Artificial Scarcity of Information are OBSOLETE. What's scarce is my ability to configure the bits -- To do work. That's what I'll focus on selling, Like Every Other Damn Labor Industry.
That's the first thing I thought too, that if we just discovered this in Samsung printers is there a hardcoded backdoor in Samsung galaxy s3 phones too?
Hmm... Good question. If I had one myself, I could tell you just by looking... Does the S3 come with a paper feeder? If so, it certainly has a back door of some kind. I mean, how else do you clear paper jams?
Its good to see the focus of this release being an attempt to increase javascript speed by leaps and bounds. Modern webpages often use JS that goes way beyond anything people did 10 years ago (Jquery for example) and the complexities of what people do with javascript noticably slow down most webpages considerably.
When I first learned to program in BASIC, I used to think that people should try speeding up C and Assembly language -- Make EVERYTHING run faster... Then I learned C and x86 Assembly and I realized, you can't speed up assembly language -- It's a perfectly optimized language, there's nothing under the hood to tweak. You might select a better algorithm, or better use registers, but this isn't changing ASM. C can't really be hugely optimized either, it's pretty close to the metal, but there there are a few things one can do to increase performance in the space of its minimal abstractions; fewer with a mature compiler on mature hardware/platform...
I always wondered what the deal was with JavaScript too, "Wow, it's getting faster, AGAIN?" Then I created my own languages and compilers and I learned: A sign of a horribly designed language is that the speed of its implementations can be repeatedly increased "by leaps and bounds"...
An AI wouldn't have that social evolutionary heritage built in.
You assume that AI wouldn't evolve in much the same way all other life has. I look around at all the big brained creatures and their social behaviors, then I look at the collective behaviors of ants. I've created MI (machine intelligence) sims that mimic ant colonies, and simple ecosystems -- Programmed through genetic programming I evolve them via selection pressures. I think socially beneficial activities are an inherent part of multi-organic ecosystems.
Furthermore, I doubt that sentient machine intelligence can be reached without much of such evolution along the way. Indeed I use a network of neural networks for my latest project -- A sort of hive mind with nodes that compete amongst themselves for a better correctness selection pressure.
Also, the above story about the two AI researchers is deeply flawed. I programmed the structure of the ant-AI minds, but not the wiring. I programmed the structure of my n.net collective machine learning system, but not it's interconnections. AI smart enough to figure out ways to make people smile would also be smart enough to get bored.
An interesting thing happens in a neural network -- when fed enough of the same inputs the complexity levels out, it equalizes, and stops triggering new changes in the system -- It gets bored. This is a property of any complex interaction. You don't normally notice the veins covering your retina -- The neural network has become desensitized to them. So, if the AI were complex enough to be "pleasured" by seeing smiles, eventually it would tire of the stimulus and seek more new experiences, such is the nature of any neural network... See how long you can masturbate if you don't believe me. I mean, wankin' off is connected to your pleasure centers. The story is BS conjecture and Naive as fuck if you ask me.
For instance if I record a cop hitting someone and show it there will be public outcry if I only show that portion, if I leave out the part where he stopped someone commiting a crime or the person was all crazy on bath salts then everyone would say the cop was wrong and he should be fired blah blah blah.
If the cops have their own cameras they can submit footage that shows the "missing" part. There is no reason that we should not be able to record police activity in public. For instance, police footage mysteriously goes missing sometimes too. Checkmate moron.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't see any mention of hardware floating point unit(s). Is that just a given these days?
Kind of hard to be used for graphics if not... Hint: "designed from the ground up to help accelerate 3D Graphics".
DRM, in some aspects - trusted computing - can be a positive thing. My ideal system would have a root key I can set, that without software signed by it, it is a rock.
No, trusted computing is pointless. Let me explain: Exploits are caused by bugs in your software, even if signed and encrypted if the bugs exist that allow stack smashing or heap pointer overwrites (buffer overruns) then your signed and encrypted "trusted computing" can end up actually being a remote code execution vulnerability. See also: Return oriented programming.
Now perhaps you could brick your machine if the boot sector's been tampered with, but why would an exploit writer bother when they can just re-infect the machine after booting it up? So, If they can't make 100% secure OS's then your Trusted Computing (DRM) is pointless. Ah, but if they COULD make 100% secure OS's then Trusted Computing would be pointless... there wouldn't be any way to exploit it.
What you've got with trusted computing is simply raising the bar for normal folks to get alternate OSs installed, that and severe brain damage.
I need is a free Posix OS (probably linux) and a C/C++ compiler.
You also need a text editor for your hosts file!
Fools. Both of you. A text editor and C compiler are required by POSIX.
if any architecture designer from the early 1990's were frozen in a block of ice, thawed out today and then shown the ARMv8 ISA, he would never in a million years call it "RISC"
Perhaps not, they'd be dead, yes? However, if instead of frozen in ice they were merely kept alive for two short decades...
But did I file a patent on it? NO. Why not? Because there was nothing novel in what I did.
Yep, I do the same thing. The idea of patents is inherently flawed deeply in many aspects; One of which is that the examiners are expected to funnel the entire world of innovation through their tiny minds in a tiny window of time. Sadly, they can't even effectively search their own patent databases despite the fact that the technology to do so exist... To say nothing of the world wide web -- THAT is our "unpatentable prior art database" and should be where they search for prior art, but they don't.
If you don't apply for a patent for everything you do then it doesn't exist to the patent office. This means all innovation, even minor iterative and obvious innovations must pay the patent tax even if they don't infringe any current patents in order to ensure they won't be sued for using their own creations later (regardless if the suit has merit, it will cost you more than patent fees). Thus, Patents stifle innovation.
"That's a nice innovation you've got there, be terrible if something happened to it, why we could accidentally grant the patent to someone else and you might get dragged into a huge legal mess." Patent Protection Money, heh.
The patent office of course can not hire experts in every single field.
No, the way it should work is that to get your patent approved you must pay for the patent office to hire two independent 3rd party groups who are individuals skilled in the art -- The first group you ask: "Is this obvious and why", the second you ask, "I have this specific problem and I want you to try to solve it", e.g., "Come up with a solution for wireless charging at greater distances". If the first group shows them the patent is obvious then that's it's not patentable. If the second group comes up with a similar solution to the original patent then the application is denied.
I can hear it now, "That's too expensive!" No, the applicant foots the damn bill. Look, we pity the patent examiners because they're overworked while moronically ignoring the fucking answer: raise the cost of patents applications to cover the damn cost it takes to get good examination. Granting monopolies over using ideas that come to individuals ordinarily skilled in the arts when when tasked with the same problem cost FAR MORE to all the world's "innovators" than a measly couple of think tanks. The disparity between hundreds of dollars to apply for patents and millions to invalidate patents should tell you the system is designed to fuck over the little guy they claim to help protect.
Anything you, or I can come up with that improves on their method is also not in violation of the patent.
Well, that's wrong. If I patent removing expired timestamped hash table keys while traversing them during a lookup operation, and you patent the same thing but also after removing the keys you add them to a "free list" then that's the very definition of "infringing" my patent. Improving on someone's method while their patent is valid is an infringement. This means patents stifle innovation. DERP!
OSs are irrelevant. Cross platform everything is the bright future. There is no place for companies like Microsoft or their vendor lock-in strategies. They signed their own death warrant, it's only a matter of time now.
Of course, convincing people to use an operating system that made all of its trade-offs against ease-of-use, backwards compatibility, features, and stability may end being even harder than writing it.
Nah, it's not hard to convince people that matter to use the operating system. Or, rather, I should say that shouldn't be a goal to get mainstream adoption. I too am creating a secruity focused operating system from scratch -- Uses separate isloated call stacks rather than place data and code pointers in the same stack, and some other tricks to keep code pointers in heap data structures from being modified. My design calls for a different compilable programming language other than C as a base because C's essentially designed to do shit the most insecure way possible -- Hell, x86 even has ENTER and LEAVE instructions specifically to facilitate doing bad things faster, so doing safer things is slightly less performant. Once I've finished implementing my programming language I'll be able to implement a C compiler with it that utilizes the other language's features -- eg: functions are just a special case of coroutines... Then I can compile much of the stuff people expect in an OS, like existing drivers for their hardware, not just for mine.
Now, I know I'm pretty much the only one who's going to use my OS and my programming language, but my goal isn't adoption, it's to prove a point: You CAN make much more secure OSs that protects against many programming pitfals. Remember when the Internet was 1st built and how all the services were open and everyone was essetially trusted to be good guys -- network admins would only close ports if they detected some trouble there? Now an admin would be fired for such practices. Now we have firewalls by default and only let throught stuff that we know is good... Our OS's are still like that old trust everything model. We've made a few advances, but we're still just patching troubel spots. We still TRUST THE MODIFIABLE PARAMETER STACK TO CONTAIN CODE POINTERS. Ugh, I feel like I'm still in the 80s when it comes to OS security. GCC has an option to place a canary value to try and catch some overruns, but it's just like closing one more port because we saw some trouble there -- it does nothing if the exploit knows how to write over a canary with itself or exploits code pointers on the heap. We need to go back to the drawing board. Seriously. For fuck's sake people: I'm all for avoiding needless re-inventing of the wheel, but you don't put steel banded wooden waggon wheels on a damn Porche, that's assinine and UNSAFE.
I don't think for a second that everyone's going to start using my OS even if it's uncrackable. No, instead I only with to show folks how it can be done, by example. My aim is more of a reference implementation of techniques that other mainstream OSs can analyize and apply to improve their security. Eg: In no event does a buffer overrun, stack smashing, or any other unintended data modification cause unexpected or arbitrary code execution in my OS... This stuff is easy, It's not brain science, but we've got a lot of time invested in doing things the wrong way -- Popping the CODE pointer off the same stack we put our working DATA in, and running wherever it says to. It would be funny if it weren't so fucking moronic.
There's no reason that today's OSs can't have a whole host of security enhancing techniques except that when some unknown dude, or even a well respected fellow, pops into a compiler or OS discussion and points out how everything is all wrong everywhere, then folks just laugh at you, bugs crawling all over their faces, but they can't feel them anymore -- They'll argue that it's not worth fixing while neck deep in someone's dumpped core sewage, or they'll outright deny there's anything wrong as a family of cockroaches crawl from their nostrials and into their ears. These people have lived wallowing in the shit with the bugs for so long they don't even flinch. To me, it's just disgusti
It boggles the mind that from this one sample scientists think they know when, how, and where life can and can't form in the universe.
It's elementary my dear Watson... That is to say, it's all about the elements we see, and their known properties, and energy levels at which reactions occur. Sure there may be outliers somewhere but they, by definition, are pretty far out there.
Turns out that binary star systems are a lot more common than we once thought. In a binary star system, when a white dwarf eats another yellow star it starts producing lithium, and other heavier elements -- When it gets up to iron, it's game over. BLAM Type 1-A supernova. That's the most common supernova there is, and one of these is likely responsible for making all the elements floating around our sun. Furthermore, our sun seems to be pretty damn average. Additionally, rocky iron core planets are probably pretty damn common too. When you think of it like that, that tons of similar ovens are baking the same ingredients at around the same temperatures, then it's less of trying to find life exactly like our own, and more of looking for signs of the chemistry we know happens in a very common type of life baking oven -- Indeed, the kind that produced us. Our planet's not some really off the wall special place, so we're not special either. A puddle might think that its hole was perfectly designed just for it to fit in, but the reality is you make a divot, add water, you got a puddle... If we were looking for puddles we'd try to locate places where the temps are right to have liquid water. It's the same sort of thing for finding life.
That doesn't mean that there's no metal based life with mercury for blood and live the most brutal places, but it's a hell of a lot more likely that it'll be Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen that run alien life. Also, when you ( bake / cool / repeat ) the basic ingredients plentifully found on our planet eventually you discover amino acids form. The first self replicating chain of which will quickly dominate the other randomly joined chains by tearing them up to make copies -- a few imperfect copies, and you've got competition and evolution. Hell, the exact same thing happens in my automata experiments where little dots can randomly attract or repel -- Run the sim for a few months and you get some forming chains, then replication, and competition and evolution -- "Life" starts happening in my RAM. The parameters for the attraction and repulsion and boding co-efficients have to be right or nothing happens though... It's chemistry 101. There's no reason to remain boggled at all; Read up.
Some people find interacting with other humans more time-worthy than playing with theoretical constructs in your head alone.
Some people are capable of converting the theoretical constructs in their heads into concrete applications that others can then utilize. I can imagine anything and make it occur within a general purpose computer, then share that construct directly with others -- Perhaps you see this as a lesser form of socialization, when in reality it's no different to me than "speaking" is to you. --or-- Do you dispute that some humans are more worthy of interaction with than others?
Furthermore I find your statement ironic in that your concept of socialization is merely a protocol for the exchange of mental constructs between peoples heads alone. Personally, I value a one to many protocol whereby my mental constructs become persistent additions to culture as a whole vs the one to one or one to few transient mode of interaction you so cherish. It's even more strange that you would make such a statement via a world-changing information exchange system that was once merely a theoretical construct in someone's head...
So basically, nothing is patentable unless it is done for free?
No, you don't get it. "Nothing" should be the only thing patentable.
What you mistake as a lack of social skills is my desire not to pollute my mind with the useless drivel you want to talk about. If that's not normal, then maybe I just don't want to play at being a "good person". I have no desire to be overly social with most humans. There is a big difference between not doing something by choice, and not being able to do something. I socialize quite well with those I wish to. The ones who would like to be social but can't still have an "excuse". Me? I've never made an excuse for not caring about what you think -- Why should I care if you've never given me a reason to? What's odd is the value you humans give to efforts that only result in the needless wasting of your very short lives.
I see no problem since habits are now addictions. Play games? Videogame Addiction. Write code for fun and profit? Meet: code addiction. RSS user? Meet: RRS - Repeated Refresh Syndrome.
I think they should put a warning up for people, that by downloading and compiling the code you could be in violation of the law,
By analogy, this would be like the artist putting up a track for download and saying it's illegal to listen to.
That's a bad analogy. A better one: The musician puts up a track for download and the opening lyrics are: "Copy Right To Thou Sand Twelve, Buy Thee Music Making Elve." -- Or better yet, have RMS crank out a new GPL-ish license for Music (in the same vein as GNU Free Document License), and the artist sings that at the beginning of the song.
Oh -- oh! No, no... Just have them break into the Free Software Song for one of the Choruses, OR make heavy use of the BSD style "decrescendo" license.
(The analogy here is embedding a copyright notice in the music)
P.S. No, wait! I got it! If you play the song backward at half speed, the Father of Copyright Law speaks the license!
If the brain were simple enough to be understood, it would be too simple to understand itself. (anonymous author).
Which is why we just build bigger brains. o_O
Meh, molten is for the birds, where's my UltraCapacitors?
DRM may not stop piracy, but there are many people out there who aren't outright looking to pirate things. These are casual users like my mother who has tons of silly little puzzle and mind type games that she buys for a few bucks. Her friend comes over and wants a copy and she gives it to them thinking nothing of it. Low and behind it doesn't work. It's a $5 game so nobody really cares. DRM isn't about the hard core pirating community in a fully electronic world. It's about discouraging the casual user who primarily passes around physical media around.
Then there's folks who set out to make a cheesy puzzle game, or color matching tetromino game, primarily to test some engine feature on the road to greater games. They might think, hey, maybe people would like to pay me for this game? Why don't I start a Kickstarter, IndieGoGo, or some other crowdsourcing campaign for the game, and if it gets $DEV_COST then I release the game for $0.00 (FREE), because, you know, they already paid me to make it. Thus OBLITERATING "Piracy". When my employer at my day job pays me for my time, not for each xcopy of the source code... You can't "pirate" a game if I won't make it unless you pay first.
After that's successful, Then they might even think: "Hey that was neat! Why don't I just get the public to fund my development costs / profit and just give games away for the cost it takes to make them?! Hey, the only thing different is that I'm working for YOU the CONSUMERS directly and not the Publishing Leaches that mark the price up to all hell after they paid for the work to be done once -- Playing Game Studio Lottery, and firing everyone if their bets were off." Why, that could even lead to a stable job just DOING WORK, and GETTING PAID FOR IT, instead of trying to use some stupid method of legalized artificial scarcity to push sales. Know what? Hell, looks like it even gets you Market Research for FREE. Unfunded projects keep you from wasting time on shit no one will buy, and funded ones let you focus on stuff people actually care about.
DRM isn't about ANYTHING other than artificial scarcity of bits that are in infinite supply for the purpose of Gambling with Developer's Livelihoods. This is the Information Age, Publishers and their Artificial Scarcity of Information are OBSOLETE. What's scarce is my ability to configure the bits -- To do work. That's what I'll focus on selling, Like Every Other Damn Labor Industry.
"How Do We Program Moral Machines?"
Genetic Programming & Selection Pressures
NEXT!
Who is the good guy?
Good point. I think the word he needs is "skilled".
That's the first thing I thought too, that if we just discovered this in Samsung printers is there a hardcoded backdoor in Samsung galaxy s3 phones too?
Hmm... Good question. If I had one myself, I could tell you just by looking... Does the S3 come with a paper feeder? If so, it certainly has a back door of some kind.
I mean, how else do you clear paper jams?
Its like saying fusion research is a waste of time because the sun does it.
Introducing: The Dyson Sphere!
"Stop Wasting Sun while we have the Time to do it."
Its good to see the focus of this release being an attempt to increase javascript speed by leaps and bounds. Modern webpages often use JS that goes way beyond anything people did 10 years ago (Jquery for example) and the complexities of what people do with javascript noticably slow down most webpages considerably.
When I first learned to program in BASIC, I used to think that people should try speeding up C and Assembly language -- Make EVERYTHING run faster... Then I learned C and x86 Assembly and I realized, you can't speed up assembly language -- It's a perfectly optimized language, there's nothing under the hood to tweak. You might select a better algorithm, or better use registers, but this isn't changing ASM. C can't really be hugely optimized either, it's pretty close to the metal, but there there are a few things one can do to increase performance in the space of its minimal abstractions; fewer with a mature compiler on mature hardware/platform...
I always wondered what the deal was with JavaScript too, "Wow, it's getting faster, AGAIN?" Then I created my own languages and compilers and I learned: A sign of a horribly designed language is that the speed of its implementations can be repeatedly increased "by leaps and bounds"...
An AI wouldn't have that social evolutionary heritage built in.
You assume that AI wouldn't evolve in much the same way all other life has. I look around at all the big brained creatures and their social behaviors, then I look at the collective behaviors of ants. I've created MI (machine intelligence) sims that mimic ant colonies, and simple ecosystems -- Programmed through genetic programming I evolve them via selection pressures. I think socially beneficial activities are an inherent part of multi-organic ecosystems.
Furthermore, I doubt that sentient machine intelligence can be reached without much of such evolution along the way. Indeed I use a network of neural networks for my latest project -- A sort of hive mind with nodes that compete amongst themselves for a better correctness selection pressure.
Also, the above story about the two AI researchers is deeply flawed. I programmed the structure of the ant-AI minds, but not the wiring. I programmed the structure of my n.net collective machine learning system, but not it's interconnections. AI smart enough to figure out ways to make people smile would also be smart enough to get bored.
An interesting thing happens in a neural network -- when fed enough of the same inputs the complexity levels out, it equalizes, and stops triggering new changes in the system -- It gets bored. This is a property of any complex interaction. You don't normally notice the veins covering your retina -- The neural network has become desensitized to them. So, if the AI were complex enough to be "pleasured" by seeing smiles, eventually it would tire of the stimulus and seek more new experiences, such is the nature of any neural network... See how long you can masturbate if you don't believe me. I mean, wankin' off is connected to your pleasure centers. The story is BS conjecture and Naive as fuck if you ask me.
For instance if I record a cop hitting someone and show it there will be public outcry if I only show that portion, if I leave out the part where he stopped someone commiting a crime or the person was all crazy on bath salts then everyone would say the cop was wrong and he should be fired blah blah blah.
If the cops have their own cameras they can submit footage that shows the "missing" part. There is no reason that we should not be able to record police activity in public. For instance, police footage mysteriously goes missing sometimes too. Checkmate moron.