Is the premise though that when you receive something in Outlook, the document must also be signed and verified by Outlook which verifies with Palladium, then the chip?
If the message is not from a trusted receipiant that you know, then it wouldn't be trusted and treated as an untrusted message.
Is the idea that only trusted receipiants and applications will be able to execute functions like send something to every person in your address book?
Although the added complexity of maintaining all this trusted information might cause the whole thing to bloat everything to no end...or am I misunderstanding here?
Okay...why can't someone out there just take the necessary steps to make Linux and related OS capable of handling the necessary TCPA related requirements.
The specs seem to be available at
http://www.trustedcomputing.org/
What specifically prevents this?
Heck...can't Redhat, IBM, HP, etc do whatever is necessary to become trusted?
As I understand, on the computer is the AMI chip, with a subsystem that sits on top of the chip and interacts with the chip. If a trusted resource is to be used, then it has to make the necessary requests to the OS which in turn interacts with the chip. Is this right? In the case of M$, this is Palladium. Why not make an OpenPalladium or whatever? Is openpalladium.org available?:-)
> It is relatively well known the Linus has > essentially modified the terms of the GPL under > which the kernel is distributed w.r.t. loadable > modules to allow exactly this functionality. > You write a closed source driver for your odd > exceeding proprietary hardware, make it a > loadable module (not compiled in) and your > driver does not have to be released under GPL. > As soon as you distribute a version with the > module compiled in "all your IP are ours", but > as long as you dynamically load it your ok.
Just curious...is doing it this way also make it difficult when a new version of the kernel comes out? Or do current kernels allow for different versions of the kernel to run with the same binary user-mode module? Or does a new version of the binary user-mode module have to be provided also?
I believe I read that there are a number of different languagages supported version of these devices, but these non-english versions have additional memory to support the additional overhead.
> On a side note, releasing the Tungstun W (phone > one) with OS 4 was a monumentally stupid thing > to do. If they're going to commit to OS 5, then > they should do immediately - not release two > new phones with one running the old OS.
Yup...I was thinking of getting one up until the point they indicated OS4...and no ARM based chip.
Anyone know if they have plans for another smart phone with these hurtles overcome?
I hope I'm not completely off here, but I believe Redhat allows for a single machine updates for free, anything more than that, I believe you have to purchase a service. I think it bases it off of your email/redhat registration. If you try doing so with another system, it prevents this, requiring you to buy the service. I think this is kind of viewed as a workstation licensing type fee/service.
Okay...maybe I'm not looking at this incorrectly, but...
If IBM problem is they don't want to force everyone to update their Mainframes and cause them a head ache...but won't they still have to upgrade their Mainframes to support XML 1.1 with new XML 1.1 compatible parsers?
Well..I would certainly hate to see pinball go away completely, but it does seem inevitable.
Perhaps to avoid this, changes need to be made to update the game.
How about a multiple player version of the game. By that I mean, have two or more players playing at the same time. Then you can either have them all trying to prevent the ball from going out of play, or to try and force the ball (almost like a air hockey type game) to go down the other players side.
This is totally off topic, but was curious if any of you are going to SigGraph and if you think its worth wild going to it? Its like 90 minutes away from me and I was contemplating going.
I've a question/comment..with the current generation (and next generation) graphics engines, you have the static content (like rooms, the ground, etc) and then you have the "dynamic" content (in this sense I'm saying moving not necessary a new unaccounted for object). Much of this tends to be prerendered into the necessary data models.
Is it possible while using one of these engines as a modeler, have a collection of primates, plop down these primatives as dynamic objects (and get handled as say an AI opponent, a moving car, etc) or plob them down and when doing so, do the necessary calculations (which might mean a little delay before it shows up).
Okay...this is going to sound a little silly...but in the process of looking over this bill...I've come to the conclusion...the thomas.loc.gov needs to update its records a little bit and insert some links to the related bills. I know it's possible to read these and then go do a search for the corresponding bill/section/subsection/etc, but wouldn't it make things a little easier to see a statement like "excemption from Federal Advisory Committee Act..." to have a link to same document? I know they have a section for references, but why not include them...
> OpenGL only solves one problem, and that is > the Graphics. > > DirectX provides an API all aspects of deployment > and operations. You get Sound, Video, Graphics, > Networking, Device integration > (Joysticks/Mice/Yokes...) and more.
Just curious...is there an umbrella project which includes all of the open type APIs in the same way that DirectX does?
I know there is OpenGL (graphics),and OpenAL (audio) but are there others as well?
I have heard of something called OpenPL (hardware periperals - http://sourceforge.net/projects/openpl/) but I'm not sure if that's the same.
I am a great fan of your work. With my favorite so far being "On a Pale Horse".
What are you feelings about E-Books and Audio Books? Are you in support of these formats? Do you feel this is the way of the future?
What are your feelings on file/music/book swapping as widely seen on the internet at present and the risks of losing some of your rights to control your content?
Hmmm...I am reminded of an old air traffic controller game in the DOS erra (anyone know of this game), which involved making sure incoming planes went to the correct available runways. It was always quite fun....Maybe they should revive that game and add some peer to peer or networking support and have a whole new system. And we would only charge a couple of million (not including hardware expenses:-)
Or how about open sourcing it to hunt and fix those bugs...
I am curious...does any kind of projected Visualization exists which does not require a sphere or sum such projection media?
By these I mean...think R2D2's projection unit, the panels used in Final Fantasy: Spirit within, or based on the trailer, the computer screen used by Tom Cruise in Minority Report.
I was thinking projectors exist, but it has to project on something. I was thinking maybe you could have something such as some kind of mist which is projected on. Is it possible when projecting from two locations to have a 3d pixel (I think the term is voxel but I'm not sure)?
Just curious...any additional links to these types of technology (and any terms referring to them to know what to look for) are greatly appreciated.
Having Flashbacks of GIF
on
More on MPEG4
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Isn't this the whole thing that happen with the GIF format...someone started trying to make money off of it and then people started using jpeg, png,etc to overcome it.
Oh well, I guess in the end, they have to make money, but shouldn't it be up to the makers that implement the cost concerns and not the patent holders?
Hmmmmm....can't we just take a page from many programming languages which have public and private methods/functions/procedures...
Anything public..is public....anything private is private...
But then again...maybe there needs to be a new type of method definition: "proprietary" which would be like private only available in a seperate file and truly represent a black box type of scenario that would allow some aspects of proprietary algorithems...
So is it safe to say, the problem seem to have with the whole RPM vs apt-get is the ease of installing packages with the behind the scene or hiddent installation of dependent packages?
I am sure that in both cases, that it is possible with either some switch settings or additional step somewhere.
I was wondering if the possibility of having a unified database for the packages might be reasonable, maybe an XML/RDF based database which then both apt-get and RPM can use mutally.
I was wondering if some of the concerns of those that aren't big fans of RPM are to use gnorpm and/or Redhat's Up2date.
They seem to have some nice GUI aspects that make installing packages a little easier as well as providing for the ability to identify and install needed dependencies like apt-get does.
Also would use of the package transalation tools like
alien help in the two working together?
I think one of the concerns over all the recent hits on many of the distributions, which was one of the weaknesses in the Standard Linux projects has been inconsistant packaging. Perhaps, combining the projects may be beneficial to both parties so that other innovations and work can be done elsewhere.
Okay...I am glad to have access to all the CDs that I previously beamed.
But is the reasons for the service fee, besides being used for service maintainance (web servers, bandwidth,etc), because of fees being paid to the record companies?
If the 1,000,000 email succeeds in getting the legislation past, will the price be reduced?
I do not look forward to having to pay twice to listen to the same thing. Now if they perhaps reduce the price to a $9.95, $19.95 or $29.95 a year charge...maybe.
I guess this is also to may the lawyers as well.
With all the weight M$ has, I am sure they probably have a lot of influence regarding these concerns in the national and internation world. Now they can use it to say, "Hey look what the mean old nasty crackers did with public information, we must do away with all of it/censor it/arrest anyone with the info...including all the wonderful known bugs."
Is it just another coincidence, that the major coverage of both stories comes from MSNBC...hmmmmm...
Okay...been trying to weed through all the off topic and trash posts and just got sick of them.
Are there any organizations or legislators that we can pass on our concerns on this issue. Maybe a petition, URL, or e-mail?
But then again...I guess anyone using Windows or Linux could be put in jail...can't "ping-ing of death" be considered a no-no according to this?
Security tools and security information are not bad, but how you use it can be a danger, but this shouldn't prevent people from having access too them.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the premise though that when you receive something in Outlook, the document must also be signed and verified by Outlook which verifies with Palladium, then the chip?
If the message is not from a trusted receipiant that you know, then it wouldn't be trusted and treated as an untrusted message.
Is the idea that only trusted receipiants and applications will be able to execute functions like send something to every person in your address book?
Although the added complexity of maintaining all this trusted information might cause the whole thing to bloat everything to no end...or am I misunderstanding here?
Okay...why can't someone out there just take the necessary steps to make Linux and related OS capable of handling the necessary TCPA related requirements.
:-)
The specs seem to be available at
http://www.trustedcomputing.org/
What specifically prevents this?
Heck...can't Redhat, IBM, HP, etc do whatever is necessary to become trusted?
As I understand, on the computer is the AMI chip, with a subsystem that sits on top of the chip and interacts with the chip. If a trusted resource is to be used, then it has to make the necessary requests to the OS which in turn interacts with the chip. Is this right? In the case of M$, this is Palladium. Why not make an OpenPalladium or whatever? Is openpalladium.org available?
Sigh..and when will the USA be supported with all these cool new phones
> It is relatively well known the Linus has
> essentially modified the terms of the GPL under
> which the kernel is distributed w.r.t. loadable > modules to allow exactly this functionality.
> You write a closed source driver for your odd
> exceeding proprietary hardware, make it a
> loadable module (not compiled in) and your
> driver does not have to be released under GPL.
> As soon as you distribute a version with the
> module compiled in "all your IP are ours", but
> as long as you dynamically load it your ok.
Just curious...is doing it this way also make it difficult when a new version of the kernel comes out? Or do current kernels allow for different versions of the kernel to run with the same binary user-mode module? Or does a new version of the binary user-mode module have to be provided also?
I believe I read that there are a number of different languagages supported version of these devices, but these non-english versions have additional memory to support the additional overhead.
> On a side note, releasing the Tungstun W (phone
> one) with OS 4 was a monumentally stupid thing
> to do. If they're going to commit to OS 5, then
> they should do immediately - not release two
> new phones with one running the old OS.
Yup...I was thinking of getting one up until the point they indicated OS4...and no ARM based chip.
Anyone know if they have plans for another smart phone with these hurtles overcome?
I hope I'm not completely off here, but I believe Redhat allows for a single machine updates for free, anything more than that, I believe you have to purchase a service. I think it bases it off of your email/redhat registration. If you try doing so with another system, it prevents this, requiring you to buy the service. I think this is kind of viewed as a workstation licensing type fee/service.
Okay...maybe I'm not looking at this incorrectly, but...
If IBM problem is they don't want to force everyone to update their Mainframes and cause them a head ache...but won't they still have to upgrade their Mainframes to support XML 1.1 with new XML 1.1 compatible parsers?
Well..I would certainly hate to see pinball go away completely, but it does seem inevitable.
Perhaps to avoid this, changes need to be made to update the game.
How about a multiple player version of the game. By that I mean, have two or more players playing at the same time. Then you can either have them all trying to prevent the ball from going out of play, or to try and force the ball (almost like a air hockey type game) to go down the other players side.
Just a suggestion.
Just curious if there was someplace out there (maybe a web site) that had the status of this scenario...
Now if only their stable releases would move forward some...what version of the 2.4.x kernel is the latest?
This is totally off topic, but was curious if any of you are going to SigGraph and if you think its worth wild going to it? Its like 90 minutes away from me and I was contemplating going.
I've a question/comment..with the current generation (and next generation) graphics engines, you have the static content (like rooms, the ground, etc) and then you have the "dynamic" content (in this sense I'm saying moving not necessary a new unaccounted for object). Much of this tends to be prerendered into the necessary data models.
Is it possible while using one of these engines as a modeler, have a collection of primates, plop down these primatives as dynamic objects (and get handled as say an AI opponent, a moving car, etc) or plob them down and when doing so, do the necessary calculations (which might mean a little delay before it shows up).
Okay...this is going to sound a little silly...but in the process of looking over this bill...I've come to the conclusion...the thomas.loc.gov needs to update its records a little bit and insert some links to the related bills. I know it's possible to read these and then go do a search for the corresponding bill/section/subsection/etc, but wouldn't it make things a little easier to see a statement like "excemption from Federal Advisory Committee Act..." to have a link to same document? I know they have a section for references, but why not include them...
> OpenGL only solves one problem, and that is
> the Graphics.
>
> DirectX provides an API all aspects of deployment
> and operations. You get Sound, Video, Graphics,
> Networking, Device integration
> (Joysticks/Mice/Yokes...) and more.
Just curious...is there an umbrella project which includes all of the open type APIs in the same way that DirectX does?
I know there is OpenGL (graphics),and OpenAL (audio) but are there others as well?
I have heard of something called OpenPL (hardware periperals - http://sourceforge.net/projects/openpl/) but I'm not sure if that's the same.
Is their an OpenNet? OpenNL?
Maybe someone should make something like an:
OpenAPI
- OpenGL
- OpenAL
- OpenPL
- OpenNL
What are you feelings about E-Books and Audio Books? Are you in support of these formats? Do you feel this is the way of the future?
What are your feelings on file/music/book swapping as widely seen on the internet at present and the risks of losing some of your rights to control your content?
Or how about open sourcing it to hunt and fix those bugs...
I am curious...does any kind of projected Visualization exists which does not require a sphere or sum such projection media?
By these I mean...think R2D2's projection unit, the panels used in Final Fantasy: Spirit within, or based on the trailer, the computer screen used by Tom Cruise in Minority Report.
I was thinking projectors exist, but it has to project on something. I was thinking maybe you could have something such as some kind of mist which is projected on. Is it possible when projecting from two locations to have a 3d pixel (I think the term is voxel but I'm not sure)?
Just curious...any additional links to these types of technology (and any terms referring to them to know what to look for) are greatly appreciated.
Oh well, I guess in the end, they have to make money, but shouldn't it be up to the makers that implement the cost concerns and not the patent holders?
Hmmmmm....can't we just take a page from many programming languages which have public and private methods/functions/procedures...
Anything public..is public....anything private is private...
But then again...maybe there needs to be a new type of method definition: "proprietary" which would be like private only available in a seperate file and truly represent a black box type of scenario that would allow some aspects of proprietary algorithems...
Just curious...you say the source code for HP/UX is available....do you have any links to information on that??
I am sure that in both cases, that it is possible with either some switch settings or additional step somewhere.
I was wondering if the possibility of having a unified database for the packages might be reasonable, maybe an XML/RDF based database which then both apt-get and RPM can use mutally.
I was wondering if some of the concerns of those that aren't big fans of RPM are to use gnorpm and/or Redhat's Up2date. They seem to have some nice GUI aspects that make installing packages a little easier as well as providing for the ability to identify and install needed dependencies like apt-get does.
Or maybe some other tools like Auto Update or AutoRPM
Also would use of the package transalation tools like alien help in the two working together?
I think one of the concerns over all the recent hits on many of the distributions, which was one of the weaknesses in the Standard Linux projects has been inconsistant packaging. Perhaps, combining the projects may be beneficial to both parties so that other innovations and work can be done elsewhere.
BreezyGuy
But is the reasons for the service fee, besides being used for service maintainance (web servers, bandwidth,etc), because of fees being paid to the record companies?
If the 1,000,000 email succeeds in getting the legislation past, will the price be reduced?
I do not look forward to having to pay twice to listen to the same thing. Now if they perhaps reduce the price to a $9.95, $19.95 or $29.95 a year charge...maybe. I guess this is also to may the lawyers as well.
BreezyGuy
With all the weight M$ has, I am sure they probably have a lot of influence regarding these concerns in the national and internation world. Now they can use it to say, "Hey look what the mean old nasty crackers did with public information, we must do away with all of it/censor it/arrest anyone with the info...including all the wonderful known bugs."
Is it just another coincidence, that the major coverage of both stories comes from MSNBC...hmmmmm...
BreezyGuy
Are there any organizations or legislators that we can pass on our concerns on this issue. Maybe a petition, URL, or e-mail?
But then again...I guess anyone using Windows or Linux could be put in jail...can't "ping-ing of death" be considered a no-no according to this?
Security tools and security information are not bad, but how you use it can be a danger, but this shouldn't prevent people from having access too them.
BreezyGuy