Never mind embedded, the regular Linux kernel has to switch into protected mode itself.
By the way, why is the obsolete (286 compatibility) "lmsw" instruction used there instead of mov cr0, eax, which works just as well. mov cr0, eax won't work on a 286, but since Linux doesn't run on those that's not a issue.:) We don't want to be one of the people that are forcing Intel to keep backward compatibility cruft in the CPU, do we?
Also, the Intel docs say you should immediately do an intersegment jump after entering protected mode - linux does a local jump first.
I patched my kernel to address these issues and it worked fine. Any comments?
(*) Also, the new SMM (System Management Mode) is a quasi-real mode which is becoming more popular for certain functions (such as power management, etc).
Umm, a lawsuit isn't something someone else does to you - even thought it is often explained in those terms.
It is something the GOVERNMENT (i.e. the courts) do to you at the request of someone else.
If you lose - the GOVERNMENT places a judgement against you forcing you to pay the other party (or have the money taken from you by force, even up to and including US Marshals coming to your home and taking your possessions for public sale).
Laws that allow you to get sued for speech MOST definitely involve the First Amendment.
Otherwise, what about a law which would allow anyone to sue you for making a bad (i.e. unpopular, unpatriotic, bad for business, politically incorrect, anything else the gov't doesn't like) comment?
Would you have any right to free speech then?
Sure it is an indirect infringement of your rights, but just as real. Just like the DMCA doesn't directly ban fair use - it just makes the means of obtaining it illegal.
The gov't levying huge ($450K) damages for speech is most definitely a First Amendment issue.
Does this lawsuit set a precendent that someone could be fined $100K under the ACPA for foreign trademark violations, or does the precendent only extend to loss of one's domain name?
If someone can get fined $100K (instant bankruptcy for most people - by the way, this HAS actually been levied in some US cases!) for violating another country's trademark - the Internet has become a very dangerous place to be. Having to worry about every jurisdiction in the world and holding yourself to the standards of the most restrictive one is untenable.
Well I guess it's only fair US citizens get subject to foreign laws, since we seem to make people from outside the US (Sklyarov) responsible for obeying US law even while in Russia.
Best way to kill the Internet - make all of it subject to every countries laws (including Taliban controlled Afghanistan - lets be "inclusive").
Then everyone will be forced to go back to watching TV instead of using the "subversive" Internet.
Re:What about information that WANTS to be free?
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
Non-CSS DVDs with a copy protection watermark (once that is implemented) won't play.
Non-CSS "legit" and "privately made" DVDs would play (no watermark). Hollywood movies would play (their CSS encrypted). "Pirate" movies (non-CSS with a watermark) wouldn't play (such as the output of DeCSS).
At least that is the theory. And of course, the MPAA, etc would like to prohibit and criminalize "unsanctioned, independent content".
P.S. I heard DeCSS can be modified to add CSS to a movie. CSS is supposed to be self-reversing (like XOR). Is that true?
Re:The issue is not technical, but political...
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
Agreed. We need to get this straight:
The following qualifies as a "protection measure":
y = x ^ 1
1 bit encryption, completely exportable, trvial to implement and very fast. It is trivial to break, but it still gets you DMCA protection.
Breakability isn't the issue. Illegality is.
Re:This is a case for Jury Nullification
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
America has REALLY long arms
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
The SSSCA could require it in the processor. Now what do you do?
Anyway, if you ever wanted to visit the USA, you'd have to never deal in non-compliant hardware or violate the SSSCA in any other manner even though you live outside the USA.
Sklyarov visited Las Vegas and was arrested here for things he did in Russia which were and are legal there.
Software is included, plus more
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
The SSSCA defines an "interactive digital device" so broadly, even software is included.
Things covered as "interactive digital devices": Linux the "cp" command A digital thermostat A digital watch
and more...
Read the law - it is very broadly constructed.
Re:There's alway a way to break copy protection
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 1
So sue me for expecting people to use the right word.
At the rate Congress is making bad laws it won't be long before someone will be able to take you up on your offer.
In Afghanistan they are now getting the rights to learn, and here in the US we are going on the path to taking them away.
I used to remember when you would go to prison in the Soviet Union for exercising your God-given right to free speech, and the US was free - now it seems the US and Russia have changed places. Just ask Sklyarov.
The DMCA means any programmer who can write a trivial encryption routine to "protect" (restrict) content can act as a legislator by making certain actions regarding that content illegal.
When a programmer can outlaw exercise of fair use rights to a piece of content - fair use rights become meaningless.
Isn't that an illegal delegation of power from Congress to those that write content "protection" (restriction) code? I think so.
Of course we can avoid their content - but that puts Linux at a disadvantage (people will cry "It can't play movies - unless you go to a bunch of criminal hackers and use (un-American) illegal software").
It is better than the SSSCA, which would at best seriously mess with Linux and at worst make it difficult or even illegal to run at all.
Re:Just give me a kernel that turns off my compute
on
Linux 2.4.18 Released
·
· Score: 1
Yikes... if they think SSSCA is merely "moderate", I'd hate to imagine what they *really* want
How about a law where anyone that wants to produce or distribute any content using digital technology has to get permission from and make payments to MPAA/RIAA/SPA/whatever.
Want to take pictures at your friend's wedding with your digital camera? You'll have to get permission from the content industries and pay them off to do so (that is IF they decide to grant permission at all).
And we can make violations a felony too. Icing on the cake. So you can spend a few years cooling your heels in the big house and have your civil rights permanently revoked for life. Oh, we can pass a law declaring any equipment capable of producing digital content as a munition (it worked for crypto!) and then felons can be barred from having them. Come to think of it, the SSSCA would mandate use of DRM, which uses encryption, which is a munition - so that could actually work.
Of course those things should be felonies, and things like drunk driving and assault and battery should be misdemeanors - we really have our priorities straight here, don't we? Beating people up and putting lives at risk on the road is nowhere near as bad as threatening "the good ole American content companies that work so hard (ha!) stealing, umm producing creative (ha!) content for the ignorant masses, umm, American consumers and contributing to making the US economy strong (neglecting that telecoms are much more economically significant and these sort of ridiculous laws could kill them by killing broadband)".
That's what they want. And if we let them, eventually they'll get it.
Keep in mind the telecom industry makes WAY more than the movie industry. Heck, I wouldn't be suprised if telco profits that could be attributed the existence of movies and music on the net also exceeded the profits of the movie industry.
Linux could very well be made ILLEGAL. If it has the DRM code, it is patent infringement, if it does not it would violate the SSSCA. The standards that would be mandated under the SSSCA could be constantly updated so that the current standard would always be subject to patent restrictions. They could easily say a technology is too easy to break due to it being obsolete WELL before the patent expires.
In fact, MS could have a 100% monopoly, if all their competition was made illegal.
And the gov't could absolve all blame - they could say they didn't outlaw Linux, it was just that MS used its "right" to not share the DRM technology developed by the "industry" (i.e. MS) which is used to "protect" content and ensure its availability to the consumer. Thus Linux would be not in compliance with the SSSCA and thus illegal - if you don't like that, beg MS for permission to add the code to Linux - also, that version must be closed source - else it could be circumvented.
Public transportation is a good idea - but buses, basically, suck.
They are slow, noisy, polluting, have a high operating cost, come at irregular times, have a high rate of failure, subject to and contribute to congestion, and are generally unpleasant.
Light rail is much better. It is faster, much quieter, much cleaner, has a lower operating cost, maintains excellent on-time performance, is reliable, and not subject to, nor contributing to congestion, and much more pleasant to ride. Heck people with access to a car will often take light rail BY CHOICE (I would if it were available to me here in Las Vegas (*)), you do NOT see that with buses.
The system in the Santa Clara Valley (San Jose, Mountain View, etc) is an excellent example. It made life MUCH easier when I was there for a business trip.
Yes, light rail costs money to build, but so do freeways (which are MUCH more expensive). Light rail gets ALL its costs attributed to it - but the costs of buses are often not attributed to the buses themselves, e.g. increased road building and rebuilding needed to deal with the need for more capacity and wear and tear brought on by buses.
So when light rail is compared to buses in regard to costs - buses have an unfair advantage - since they aren't made to account for the ancillary costs they entail.
(*) In Las Vegas they do have some privately owned systems between casinos (which I use) which are quite nice (albeit limited). In 2004 we will have the Las Vegas monorail system for the resort district.
Slashdot Mirror
Good idea. Haven't you heard, the US' jurisdiction is now the whole world. 1/2 :)
I can make a good case for 192 bit addressing.
64 bits local memory address plus
128 bits of IPv6 address.
So you could have a pointer to memory location X on IP address Y. Distributed memory access over a network.
256 bits might make more sense, then both parts would be equal (128 bits).
Never mind embedded, the regular Linux kernel has to switch into protected mode itself.
:) We don't want to be one of the people that are forcing Intel to keep backward compatibility cruft in the CPU, do we?
By the way, why is the obsolete (286 compatibility) "lmsw" instruction used there instead of mov cr0, eax, which works just as well. mov cr0, eax won't work on a 286, but since Linux doesn't run on those that's not a issue.
Also, the Intel docs say you should immediately do an intersegment jump after entering protected mode - linux does a local jump first.
I patched my kernel to address these issues and it worked fine. Any comments?
(*) Also, the new SMM (System Management Mode) is a quasi-real mode which is becoming more popular for certain functions (such as power management, etc).
Umm, a lawsuit isn't something someone else does to you - even thought it is often explained in those terms.
It is something the GOVERNMENT (i.e. the courts) do to you at the request of someone else.
If you lose - the GOVERNMENT places a judgement against you forcing you to pay the other party (or have the money taken from you by force, even up to and including US Marshals coming to your home and taking your possessions for public sale).
Laws that allow you to get sued for speech MOST definitely involve the First Amendment.
Otherwise, what about a law which would allow anyone to sue you for making a bad (i.e. unpopular, unpatriotic, bad for business, politically incorrect, anything else the gov't doesn't like) comment?
Would you have any right to free speech then?
Sure it is an indirect infringement of your rights, but just as real. Just like the DMCA doesn't directly ban fair use - it just makes the means of obtaining it illegal.
The gov't levying huge ($450K) damages for speech is most definitely a First Amendment issue.
Does this lawsuit set a precendent that someone could be fined $100K under the ACPA for foreign trademark violations, or does the precendent only extend to loss of one's domain name?
If someone can get fined $100K (instant bankruptcy for most people - by the way, this HAS actually been levied in some US cases!) for violating another country's trademark - the Internet has become a very dangerous place to be. Having to worry about every jurisdiction in the world and holding yourself to the standards of the most restrictive one is untenable.
Well I guess it's only fair US citizens get subject to foreign laws, since we seem to make people from outside the US (Sklyarov) responsible for obeying US law even while in Russia.
Best way to kill the Internet - make all of it subject to every countries laws (including Taliban controlled Afghanistan - lets be "inclusive").
Then everyone will be forced to go back to watching TV instead of using the "subversive" Internet.
Non-CSS DVDs with a copy protection watermark (once that is implemented) won't play.
Non-CSS "legit" and "privately made" DVDs would play (no watermark). Hollywood movies would play (their CSS encrypted). "Pirate" movies (non-CSS with a watermark) wouldn't play (such as the output of DeCSS).
At least that is the theory. And of course, the MPAA, etc would like to prohibit and criminalize "unsanctioned, independent content".
P.S. I heard DeCSS can be modified to add CSS to a movie. CSS is supposed to be self-reversing (like XOR). Is that true?
Agreed. We need to get this straight:
The following qualifies as a "protection measure":
y = x ^ 1
1 bit encryption, completely exportable, trvial to implement and very fast. It is trivial to break, but it still gets you DMCA protection.
Breakability isn't the issue. Illegality is.
Look at the unconstitutional prosecution of Laura Kriho mentioned on the Fully Informed Jury Association web site.
The SSSCA could require it in the processor. Now what do you do?
Anyway, if you ever wanted to visit the USA, you'd have to never deal in non-compliant hardware or violate the SSSCA in any other manner even though you live outside the USA.
Sklyarov visited Las Vegas and was arrested here for things he did in Russia which were and are legal there.
The SSSCA defines an "interactive digital device" so broadly, even software is included.
Things covered as "interactive digital devices":
Linux
the "cp" command
A digital thermostat
A digital watch
and more...
Read the law - it is very broadly constructed.
So sue me for expecting people to use the right word.
At the rate Congress is making bad laws it won't be long before someone will be able to take you up on your offer.
In Afghanistan they are now getting the rights to learn, and here in the US we are going on the path to taking them away.
I used to remember when you would go to prison in the Soviet Union for exercising your God-given right to free speech, and the US was free - now it seems the US and Russia have changed places. Just ask Sklyarov.
What if a company goes bust? Will the unprotected version of the content ever get released?
Of course, building or even possessing such a converter is a felony. 5 years in prison.
So you are saying the ONLY reason someone would EVER want to create is to make a profit? No profit = nothing created??
Explain Linux then.
No, US Customs has become part of Nintendo.
We will never have our freedom until the DMCA is overturned. Better sooner than later - when the economy collapses because innovation has been brought to a standstill by stupid laws.
The DMCA means any programmer who can write a trivial encryption routine to "protect" (restrict) content can act as a legislator by making certain actions regarding that content illegal.
When a programmer can outlaw exercise of fair use rights to a piece of content - fair use rights become meaningless.
Isn't that an illegal delegation of power from Congress to those that write content "protection" (restriction) code? I think so.
Of course we can avoid their content - but that puts Linux at a disadvantage (people will cry "It can't play movies - unless you go to a bunch of criminal hackers and use (un-American) illegal software").
It is better than the SSSCA, which would at best seriously mess with Linux and at worst make it difficult or even illegal to run at all.
Power down? Why would you ever want to do that? ;)
Yikes... if they think SSSCA is merely "moderate", I'd hate to imagine what they *really* want
How about a law where anyone that wants to produce or distribute any content using digital technology has to get permission from and make payments to MPAA/RIAA/SPA/whatever.Want to take pictures at your friend's wedding with your digital camera? You'll have to get permission from the content industries and pay them off to do so (that is IF they decide to grant permission at all).
And we can make violations a felony too. Icing on the cake. So you can spend a few years cooling your heels in the big house and have your civil rights permanently revoked for life. Oh, we can pass a law declaring any equipment capable of producing digital content as a munition (it worked for crypto!) and then felons can be barred from having them. Come to think of it, the SSSCA would mandate use of DRM, which uses encryption, which is a munition - so that could actually work.
Of course those things should be felonies, and things like drunk driving and assault and battery should be misdemeanors - we really have our priorities straight here, don't we? Beating people up and putting lives at risk on the road is nowhere near as bad as threatening "the good ole American content companies that work so hard (ha!) stealing, umm producing creative (ha!) content for the ignorant masses, umm, American consumers and contributing to making the US economy strong (neglecting that telecoms are much more economically significant and these sort of ridiculous laws could kill them by killing broadband)".
That's what they want. And if we let them, eventually they'll get it.
Neither did Dmitry Sklyarov or Noriega for that matter. They both were prosecuted by the US for actions done outside the US.
What's in it for the ISPs?
Keep in mind the telecom industry makes WAY more than the movie industry. Heck, I wouldn't be suprised if telco profits that could be attributed the existence of movies and music on the net also exceeded the profits of the movie industry.
That's why the MPAA wants to rewrite the laws.
Linux could very well be made ILLEGAL. If it has the DRM code, it is patent infringement, if it does not it would violate the SSSCA. The standards that would be mandated under the SSSCA could be constantly updated so that the current standard would always be subject to patent restrictions. They could easily say a technology is too easy to break due to it being obsolete WELL before the patent expires.
In fact, MS could have a 100% monopoly, if all their competition was made illegal.
And the gov't could absolve all blame - they could say they didn't outlaw Linux, it was just that MS used its "right" to not share the DRM technology developed by the "industry" (i.e. MS) which is used to "protect" content and ensure its availability to the consumer. Thus Linux would be not in compliance with the SSSCA and thus illegal - if you don't like that, beg MS for permission to add the code to Linux - also, that version must be closed source - else it could be circumvented.
Too bad Congress wants to enforce it with the SSSCA. It will be ILLEGAL to sell non-crippled (non-DRM) PCs.
Copyright infringement is NOT theft.
Yes it is a crime or at least a civil violation (tort). It may or may not be immoral - but it is NOT THEFT. Calling it theft does not make it so.
Theft involves obtaining something, and taking it away from someone else - not illegally using, making or distributing a copy.
Public transportation is a good idea - but buses, basically, suck.
They are slow, noisy, polluting, have a high operating cost, come at irregular times, have a high rate of failure, subject to and contribute to congestion, and are generally unpleasant.
Light rail is much better. It is faster, much quieter, much cleaner, has a lower operating cost, maintains excellent on-time performance, is reliable, and not subject to, nor contributing to congestion, and much more pleasant to ride. Heck people with access to a car will often take light rail BY CHOICE (I would if it were available to me here in Las Vegas (*)), you do NOT see that with buses.
The system in the Santa Clara Valley (San Jose, Mountain View, etc) is an excellent example. It made life MUCH easier when I was there for a business trip.
Yes, light rail costs money to build, but so do freeways (which are MUCH more expensive). Light rail gets ALL its costs attributed to it - but the costs of buses are often not attributed to the buses themselves, e.g. increased road building and rebuilding needed to deal with the need for more capacity and wear and tear brought on by buses.
So when light rail is compared to buses in regard to costs - buses have an unfair advantage - since they aren't made to account for the ancillary costs they entail.
(*) In Las Vegas they do have some privately owned systems between casinos (which I use) which are quite nice (albeit limited). In 2004 we will have the Las Vegas monorail system for the resort district.