And how, exactly, do you propose to have any knowledge that what the FDA describes in the documents and what you actually got are anywhere near the same thing? Or are you really stupid enough to believe that just because you received a bottle that says 'lisinopril 10mg' that is what it really is in an unregulated environment? Or maybe your wonderful super-fast communication will get the word out that bottles marked 'lisinopril 10mg' are dangerous, and you should not take them? Of course, if you have the real thing and get this wonderful information you will not be taking the drugs you need.
No shit. But by my taking just excerpts from your statement, I can make it appear that you were advocating. Yet you make the claim that when a lawyer says "don't take an excerpt of a law literally" it is some kind of indication that he thinks the entire law is not to be taken literally.
This is entirely false. The argument for copyright is (and always has been) that creators get to control their works. Sometimes that means selling copies. Sometimes that means saying 'you can not use my music in your commercial'. Sometimes that means saying 'you may not distribute binaries of this software without distributing the source'. Sometimes it means saying 'this is my gift to the world, do what you want with it'.
What does the ease of infringement have to do with anything? There are lots of things that are incredibly easy to do, yet society has decided that doing them is bad so we make laws about them. It is incredibly easy to dump poisonous chemicals into the water supply - does that mean that laws saying don't do that are obsolete? It is incredibly easy to mow down a bunch of people with your car, therefore murder laws are obsolete? It is incredibly easy to throw garbage out your car window - are littering laws obsolete?
You just advocated not interpreting written law literally ("Don't interpret written law literally") and making it up as you go along ("Just make it up as you go along"), right? What's that? You mean by taking just an excerpt of what you said it completely changes the meaning, and those excerpts should not be taken literally? Shocking!
As far as this case goes, yes, it was a dice rolling experiment by the defendant. She did not have a legal leg to stand on, and thought she could just replace that with destroying evidence, lying, etc, and maybe she could snow them enough to somehow win. It did not work.
So what? The purpose of copyright is to foster the creation of new works, not to prevent somebody from making money. The damage to the copyright holder does not change based on the motives of the infringer.
The difference between Watson and Google is the difference between asking an expert a question and asking a librarian the same question. The expert (Watson) will give you the answer. The librarian (Google) will tell you what books may contain the answer you are looking for, and it is up to you to read those books and find the actual answer. Unless, of course, the question is frequently asked or trivial.
But again, you are focusing on the 'speed' aspect, which is not what is important. The important point is that it got the correct answers in the same time scale as humans. It did not take a day, or an hour, or a minute, or even 10 seconds to come up with the answer. It did it in approximately the same time as a talented human did it. A few milliseconds here or there is not, and never was, the point.
For the types of things Watson would be used for (eg medical diagnosis) a few fractions of a second here and there mean absolutely nothing. What matters is getting the correct answer, and not taking 'too' long to do so.
People who focus on the speed of getting the questions or speed of pushing the button have, it seems to me, completely missed the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise was to show that Watson had the ability to extract specific answers out of unstructured data with natural language questions. If it couldn't do that, it does not matter how quickly it got the question or how fast it pushed the button.
The Jeopardy contest was not about showing that Watson is better than humans at playing Jeopardy, it was about showing that Watson was equal to humans at finding the correct answer (which just happened to make it better at playing Jeopardy).
"Just looking up the answers in a database" Oh, is that all it was doing? I didn't realize it was so trivial. Seriously, when you make a stupid statement like that it shows that you really have absolutely no idea what Watson does.
What you are really saying is that Watson equaled the humans in the ability to get the right answer, but instead of recognizing that accomplishment you just complain about such a trivial matter as being able to push the button quicker.
The size of the KVM is not important. What is important is that any component can verify it's chain of trust, and as soon as that KVM layer is hit the chain is broken. To get around that, you would have to replace all of the components that verify their chain of trust. In addition, since those components now no longer have trusted signatures, anything that loads them would also have to be changed, and so on.
It depends on how many places Windows checks the chain of trust. The kernel can check that the bootloader is trusted. The drivers, services, applications, etc can all check that the kernel is trusted. When you are getting to the point where the whole system has to be modified and installed (in one shot, so nothing notices the changes happening) you are making it much more difficult to implement effective malware.
A more likely scenario is that Windows will refuse to load if booted from something it does not trust. Remember, there are two components involved here: authentication and trust. UEFI is doing the authentication - yes, the boot loader is signed by someone I trust. The thing being loaded is what does the trusting. The Windows kernel can say 'TPM says I was booted by a bootloader signed by Red Hat. I don't trust Red Hat.'
Not true at all. First, this is not about installing firmware, it is about boot loaders. Second, there are two issues involved in secure boot: authentication and trust.
The authentication part is what the key and UEFI are doing. UEFI is simply making sure that the bootloader is signed by someone it trusts. In other words, the bootloader has not been modified since being signed.
The trust part is checked by the thing being loaded by the bootloader. As soon as the Windows kernel comes up it can check with TPM and find out it was loaded by an unmodified boot loader signed by TheRaven64, and say 'who the hell is TheRaven64? I don't trust him'. That is where the security comes in. If that chain of trust is broken anywhere from UEFI up to the application then the system is untrusted.
It is sort of like having a document notarized. I can write a document that says I am the rightful king of the world. I can take that document to a notary, and they will put their seal on it saying that in fact it is I who have signed the document. However, just because you know that the document is authentic does not mean you have to believe what is in it.
It does not exclude anyone from doing anything. It simply says that secure boot can not be disabled. You can run whatever you want, as long as it has a signed bootloader.
It does not work like that. Here is a very simplified overview of how it works:
Someone writes a bootloader. That bootloader gets digitally signed.
At boot time, UEFI finds the bootloader, and verifies that it was signed by someone trusted by the UEFI, and that the code is intact based on the signature.
If the above test passes, the boot loader is loaded, and UEFI uses TPM to leave a trace that UEFI (signed by x) says that the boot loader is OK. Control is passed to the boot loader
The boot loader finds the next thing in the boot sequence (kernel, probably) and performs the same validation of it and leaves another TPM trace that says the bootloader (signed by y) says the kernel is OK.
This process repeats with everything that is loaded, right up to the application.
At any point, a piece of code can use TPM to check all of the traces leading up to itself. If any of those traces were made by someone you don't trust, the whole thing can be considered to be untrusted.
So, in your scenario, you give your $99 to Microsoft, and get a key that can be used to sign your bootloader. If you want, you can hand that key out, and anyone can sign a bootloader, including malware writers. However, just because someone verified that your bootloader was not tampered with (ie UEFI verifying the signature) does not mean that anyone has to trust your bootloader. As soon as the Windows kernel gets running and checks with TPM and finds out that the bootloader was signed by badfish99 it can switch into 'untrusted' mode, whatever that means. And if you somehow manage to replace not only the bootloader but also the kernel, the next thing loaded can find out that the kernel was not signed by someone trusted. And so on. In order to effectively install something untrusted without being detected you pretty much have to replace the whole system, from bootloader to applications and everything in between.
Untrue. The requirement is that secure boot can not be disabled. If you have a signed bootloader (like one from Red Hat, Fedora, or any other distro that pays the $99 to use this service) you can boot any OS you want.
Read TFA. The wingtip of the shuttle lightly grazed a wooden navigation bumper on the bridge, causing some protective foam to fall off the shuttle and no damage to the bridge.
So 'payload' means bomb? Since when? And do people really think you could make the bomb-carrying mechanism, bomb doors, and a bomb all fit in under 450 pounds?
Forced to buy something at Best Buy? No, never. However, I have voluntarily purchased things at Best Buy recently, and I have always found their prices to be at the very low end for brick and mortar stores. The only time I have ever had my receipt checked at the door was when I had an item that was too large to bag.
Stores do not care about 'better customers'. Stores, like all businesses, care about profit. Treating you better costs them real money. $10K/year is revenue, not profit. The profit from your $10K/year is not going to make up for the increased cost to them. To make up that cost they must raise prices, and all the customers who are there solely because the price is low (which is 99% of their customers) and who don't particularly care how they are treated, are going to find somewhere cheaper.
Some places (like Walmart) have a business model that is to attract as many customers as possible by offering the lowest price. Other places have a business model that is to attract very few high-paying customers.
Going to Walmart or its ilk and telling them you would shop there if they treated you better is like going to a high-end dress shop and telling them you would shop there if they lowered their prices. They don't care. Walmart is there to provide low prices, and customer service suffers for it. The high-end shop is there to provide excellent service, and it is reflected in the price. And there are loads of other stores between those two extremes, with varying degrees of service and price.
Slashdot Mirror
That is just the point - the FDA does not know if the drugs are safe or not, because they are not regulated by the FDA.
And how, exactly, do you propose to have any knowledge that what the FDA describes in the documents and what you actually got are anywhere near the same thing? Or are you really stupid enough to believe that just because you received a bottle that says 'lisinopril 10mg' that is what it really is in an unregulated environment? Or maybe your wonderful super-fast communication will get the word out that bottles marked 'lisinopril 10mg' are dangerous, and you should not take them? Of course, if you have the real thing and get this wonderful information you will not be taking the drugs you need.
No shit. But by my taking just excerpts from your statement, I can make it appear that you were advocating. Yet you make the claim that when a lawyer says "don't take an excerpt of a law literally" it is some kind of indication that he thinks the entire law is not to be taken literally.
This is entirely false. The argument for copyright is (and always has been) that creators get to control their works. Sometimes that means selling copies. Sometimes that means saying 'you can not use my music in your commercial'. Sometimes that means saying 'you may not distribute binaries of this software without distributing the source'. Sometimes it means saying 'this is my gift to the world, do what you want with it'.
What does the ease of infringement have to do with anything? There are lots of things that are incredibly easy to do, yet society has decided that doing them is bad so we make laws about them. It is incredibly easy to dump poisonous chemicals into the water supply - does that mean that laws saying don't do that are obsolete? It is incredibly easy to mow down a bunch of people with your car, therefore murder laws are obsolete? It is incredibly easy to throw garbage out your car window - are littering laws obsolete?
You just advocated not interpreting written law literally ("Don't interpret written law literally") and making it up as you go along ("Just make it up as you go along"), right? What's that? You mean by taking just an excerpt of what you said it completely changes the meaning, and those excerpts should not be taken literally? Shocking!
As far as this case goes, yes, it was a dice rolling experiment by the defendant. She did not have a legal leg to stand on, and thought she could just replace that with destroying evidence, lying, etc, and maybe she could snow them enough to somehow win. It did not work.
So what? The purpose of copyright is to foster the creation of new works, not to prevent somebody from making money. The damage to the copyright holder does not change based on the motives of the infringer.
The difference between Watson and Google is the difference between asking an expert a question and asking a librarian the same question. The expert (Watson) will give you the answer. The librarian (Google) will tell you what books may contain the answer you are looking for, and it is up to you to read those books and find the actual answer. Unless, of course, the question is frequently asked or trivial.
But again, you are focusing on the 'speed' aspect, which is not what is important. The important point is that it got the correct answers in the same time scale as humans. It did not take a day, or an hour, or a minute, or even 10 seconds to come up with the answer. It did it in approximately the same time as a talented human did it. A few milliseconds here or there is not, and never was, the point.
For the types of things Watson would be used for (eg medical diagnosis) a few fractions of a second here and there mean absolutely nothing. What matters is getting the correct answer, and not taking 'too' long to do so.
Who is responsible for seeing that customer doesn't rip off the store? The store.
Who is responsible for seeing the at store doesn't rip off the customer? The customer.
Not that difficult of a concept.
People who focus on the speed of getting the questions or speed of pushing the button have, it seems to me, completely missed the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise was to show that Watson had the ability to extract specific answers out of unstructured data with natural language questions. If it couldn't do that, it does not matter how quickly it got the question or how fast it pushed the button.
The Jeopardy contest was not about showing that Watson is better than humans at playing Jeopardy, it was about showing that Watson was equal to humans at finding the correct answer (which just happened to make it better at playing Jeopardy).
"Just looking up the answers in a database" Oh, is that all it was doing? I didn't realize it was so trivial. Seriously, when you make a stupid statement like that it shows that you really have absolutely no idea what Watson does.
What you are really saying is that Watson equaled the humans in the ability to get the right answer, but instead of recognizing that accomplishment you just complain about such a trivial matter as being able to push the button quicker.
You may have heard of this new thing called 'cryptography'. It means that things like 'captured legitimate TPM traces' are useless.
The whole point of TPM is to prevent attacks such as you describe.
The size of the KVM is not important. What is important is that any component can verify it's chain of trust, and as soon as that KVM layer is hit the chain is broken. To get around that, you would have to replace all of the components that verify their chain of trust. In addition, since those components now no longer have trusted signatures, anything that loads them would also have to be changed, and so on.
It depends on how many places Windows checks the chain of trust. The kernel can check that the bootloader is trusted. The drivers, services, applications, etc can all check that the kernel is trusted. When you are getting to the point where the whole system has to be modified and installed (in one shot, so nothing notices the changes happening) you are making it much more difficult to implement effective malware.
A more likely scenario is that Windows will refuse to load if booted from something it does not trust. Remember, there are two components involved here: authentication and trust. UEFI is doing the authentication - yes, the boot loader is signed by someone I trust. The thing being loaded is what does the trusting. The Windows kernel can say 'TPM says I was booted by a bootloader signed by Red Hat. I don't trust Red Hat.'
Not true at all. First, this is not about installing firmware, it is about boot loaders. Second, there are two issues involved in secure boot: authentication and trust.
The authentication part is what the key and UEFI are doing. UEFI is simply making sure that the bootloader is signed by someone it trusts. In other words, the bootloader has not been modified since being signed.
The trust part is checked by the thing being loaded by the bootloader. As soon as the Windows kernel comes up it can check with TPM and find out it was loaded by an unmodified boot loader signed by TheRaven64, and say 'who the hell is TheRaven64? I don't trust him'. That is where the security comes in. If that chain of trust is broken anywhere from UEFI up to the application then the system is untrusted.
It is sort of like having a document notarized. I can write a document that says I am the rightful king of the world. I can take that document to a notary, and they will put their seal on it saying that in fact it is I who have signed the document. However, just because you know that the document is authentic does not mean you have to believe what is in it.
It does not exclude anyone from doing anything. It simply says that secure boot can not be disabled. You can run whatever you want, as long as it has a signed bootloader.
It does not work like that. Here is a very simplified overview of how it works:
Someone writes a bootloader. That bootloader gets digitally signed.
At boot time, UEFI finds the bootloader, and verifies that it was signed by someone trusted by the UEFI, and that the code is intact based on the signature.
If the above test passes, the boot loader is loaded, and UEFI uses TPM to leave a trace that UEFI (signed by x) says that the boot loader is OK. Control is passed to the boot loader
The boot loader finds the next thing in the boot sequence (kernel, probably) and performs the same validation of it and leaves another TPM trace that says the bootloader (signed by y) says the kernel is OK.
This process repeats with everything that is loaded, right up to the application.
At any point, a piece of code can use TPM to check all of the traces leading up to itself. If any of those traces were made by someone you don't trust, the whole thing can be considered to be untrusted.
So, in your scenario, you give your $99 to Microsoft, and get a key that can be used to sign your bootloader. If you want, you can hand that key out, and anyone can sign a bootloader, including malware writers. However, just because someone verified that your bootloader was not tampered with (ie UEFI verifying the signature) does not mean that anyone has to trust your bootloader. As soon as the Windows kernel gets running and checks with TPM and finds out that the bootloader was signed by badfish99 it can switch into 'untrusted' mode, whatever that means. And if you somehow manage to replace not only the bootloader but also the kernel, the next thing loaded can find out that the kernel was not signed by someone trusted. And so on. In order to effectively install something untrusted without being detected you pretty much have to replace the whole system, from bootloader to applications and everything in between.
Untrue. The requirement is that secure boot can not be disabled. If you have a signed bootloader (like one from Red Hat, Fedora, or any other distro that pays the $99 to use this service) you can boot any OS you want.
Read TFA. The wingtip of the shuttle lightly grazed a wooden navigation bumper on the bridge, causing some protective foam to fall off the shuttle and no damage to the bridge.
So 'payload' means bomb? Since when? And do people really think you could make the bomb-carrying mechanism, bomb doors, and a bomb all fit in under 450 pounds?
The payload is cameras and associated equipment.
Since it is called "Phantom Eye" and it "provides persistent monitoring", it seems like cameras would be a good bet.
Hmm, "Phantom Eye", provides "persistent monitoring". Yep, sounds like a bomber.
Forced to buy something at Best Buy? No, never. However, I have voluntarily purchased things at Best Buy recently, and I have always found their prices to be at the very low end for brick and mortar stores. The only time I have ever had my receipt checked at the door was when I had an item that was too large to bag.
Stores do not care about 'better customers'. Stores, like all businesses, care about profit. Treating you better costs them real money. $10K/year is revenue, not profit. The profit from your $10K/year is not going to make up for the increased cost to them. To make up that cost they must raise prices, and all the customers who are there solely because the price is low (which is 99% of their customers) and who don't particularly care how they are treated, are going to find somewhere cheaper.
Some places (like Walmart) have a business model that is to attract as many customers as possible by offering the lowest price. Other places have a business model that is to attract very few high-paying customers.
Going to Walmart or its ilk and telling them you would shop there if they treated you better is like going to a high-end dress shop and telling them you would shop there if they lowered their prices. They don't care. Walmart is there to provide low prices, and customer service suffers for it. The high-end shop is there to provide excellent service, and it is reflected in the price. And there are loads of other stores between those two extremes, with varying degrees of service and price.