The spec has a brilliant little hole in it already.
The VM's have an ability to run native code, oestensibly to 'patch' a compromised decoder.
So.................., it seems the first step to cracking blueray has been identified. What a fuck up.
From here theres a 60 instruction VM.Rebuild the VM firmware using the native code execution capacities, and make sure the new VM cant 'see' its outside changes, and you may well have a (near) perfect irreversible hack.
Thats the crazy thing. I cant remember the country, although I'll wager its either EU or Australia (back when the ACCC had teeth) , but I remember there was a govt ruling that blocking use of third party cartriges was anti-competitive. There was a similar ruling in Australia by the ACCC, if I remember correctly, that blocked import of DVD players that where locked to a single region due to the fact that it was deemed anticompetitive by blocking parallel imports. I think the howard government might of nuked that decision (I cant really remember)however.
I really do hope governments stand up to this and recognise that its anti-consumer, and anti-environmental (by blocking refilling).
Man. I do love my dinky little brother laser however. 3 years later, and still no sign of a need to replace the cartrige.
You know I've yet to ever see a single case of a law being "rewritten" by a "liberal" judge that wasnt infact simply a case of cancelling a clearly unconstitutional law.
You have a choice. Your constitutional rights, or politicans doing whatever the fuck they want. The Supreme court judges JOB is to curb-stomp laws that break your right. Its been that way (or at least in spirit) since magna carta, and thank fuck for that.
If you want judges that dont 'rewrite' laws, you first need to go thru the constitutional steps required to abandon the constitution.
The cost of the film isnt really the big issue (Although arguably 9 mil is 'big' no matter what way you look at it), its distribution. Micheal probably can finance this stuff himself. He probably CANT afford his own movie theatre chain to distribute it, so he's locked into someone elses game regardless.
Unfortunately its probably not as easy to just 'do a fugazi' and distribute movies via home copied cassette tapes or youtube. Well he could youtube it, but that dont fit well into the whole "I just spent 9mil on this" scenario.
[i]Okay, some people have obviously not thought this through to the logical conclusion...
Giving animals these rights means we don't just protect them from humans, we have to protect them from each other. If a chimp harms another chimp in some way, that crime will have to be investigated and the perpetrator brought to justice.
This can only lead to one thing - another spinoff of CSI.
Please, I beg of you, don't take us down that path.[/i]
Ahhh. But this is where I differ!
As I said, mostly rights are passive (I dont HAVE to act to enjoy a right), whereas responsibilitys are active (I HAVE to do something to fullfill a responsibility, even if that action is in the negative ie purposefully not doing something [like killing someone]).
But because of the passive vs active nature, we can say that a chimp is capable of enjoying a right , even if its not (capable of being?) aware of it, where as we cant sanely expect to make the chimpanzee behave along the dictates of a set of abstract responsibilitys.
You are right in pointing out the logical error, in that whereas we wouldnt let a profoundly intellectually disabled person run riot with a gun even if we accepted that person is uncapable of understanding it and therefore ought not be punished, whilst we might chose not to interfere with say a brutal monkey fight over a mate.
But ultimately thats where a degree of pragmatism kicks in, and we look for a more attuned 'right' and yes understand that 'human' and 'chimpanzee' rights are infact different.
Chris burkes suggestion of 'the right to be left alone' is almost perfect here. The chimp doesnt need to act responsibly to the right. It is infact a chimp and is perfectly entitled to go screwing about with other chimps. But WE can have the responsibility to just leave the chimp alone. And from that right OUR responsibilitys TO the chimp (dont kill, dont torture, dont denude its habitat) can be evaluated.
Oh look, I do understand that. And you are correct in saying that perhaps all the chimp 'wants' is to just be a chimp (Well, perhaps what he *wants* is easy food, a good looking mate, and some crazy fun branches to flip about on). I *AM* pretty certain the chimp doesnt want to be killed. If a chimp has learned a poachers gun will kill him, perhaps from observation, he's going to get damn terrified when he sees that gun because he doesnt *want* to die or be injured or hurt.
But perhaps my mistake is saying what the chimp 'expects' rights wise.
Maybe the trick is to look at how we frame 'rights' in this regard. Rights are oft constituted in limits. When I say "I have a right not to be killed!" , I also , implicit but not necesarily stated, mean "You have no right to kill me!".
So when we say "The chimpanzee has the right to life", we really mean "We have a responsibility to not kill the chimpanzee", and perhaps we might consider being a little cohersive about that. 'If someone shoots the chimp, charge the bastard with murder', we might say.
And perhaps you are right. The key one is "the chimp has the right to be a chimp in peace". Or in the negative "You have no right to go fucking with that chimpanzee and taking him away from the life he loves"
I think the problem with this is we really have to ask what does it *mean* to be a 'person'. Lets drop the word 'human' and use 'person', and *why* do we consider 'people' to be so important.
Lets take the example of someone so profoundly brain damaged that they walk about with a knife and stab someone thinking that person is a loaf of bread. Generally most reasonable minded people accept that as sad as it is, the person with the knife simply is not capable of aprehending the responsibility of not stabbing the person, as its understood that to enact a responsibility, you have to be rational enough to understand it.
So instead we might put the crazy person in some sort of care with some protections to make sure they cant do it, but we are not *punishing* them for failing that responsibility, because we understand they are incapable of fullfilling it.
But that doesnt mean the crazy person doesnt have some basic rights, such as the right to life, or the right to not be beaten up or whatever. Rights dont necesarily justify an ability to understand them to be valid. Responsibilitys do, because I'd argue rights are passive and responsibilitys are active.
Not ALL rights are removed from responsibility admitedly. Someone crazy enough to think its ok to shoot people for lols SHOULDNT have a gun. But someone with the rationality to be responsible with the gun arguably SHOULD have the right (assuming you think its a good right).
Now, lets look at the monkey. The monkey has a bunch of attributes we associate with personhood. They appear to be self aware. They appear to possess a basic level of empathy. They can, with the correct training, communicate basic abstract concepts. They fall in love, and love to fuck. They get angry and hate on stuff. Pretty much stuff "people" do.
But they cant read a book, or drive a car (perhaps) or hold down a steady job, or surf the net. But many "people" cant do this either. Infants cant. People with profound downs syndrome cant either, but we'd never deny them personhood.
Peter singer (slightly contraversial australian philosopher) argues the capacity for suffering is a pretty good determinant for judging the right to moral consideration, and who'd deny a monkeys capacity to suffer.
I'd suggest whilst the full range of 'human' rights would not fully be apropriate for monkeys, as they cant cope with the responsibilitys or understand them (although arming chimps WOULD be hilarious at a distance) , we can certainly derive a subset of rights they should be able to expect (the right to life, the right not to be tortured, the right for a human advocate to sue on their behalf for loss of rights, etc) based on the facts at hand.
If, as many scientists believe, chimps experience the world with similar emotional colour to us, vivisection and shit really does become an horrible horrible thing to contemplate empathetically.
I've got muslim friends that are as 'moderate' as you or I, heck one even comes to the pub with me for a beer every now and then ("Oh dont worry, Allahs got bigger things to worry about mate"), and I've got whackjob christian aquaintances who think gays should be executed and muslims converted by force.
Moderation is moderation, and its the usual state of humans who have better things to worry about , like getting to work on time and making sure the kids are doing the homework.
Why would you test hypothesis about this earth on other earths, when you have perfectly good data from this planet to test hypothesis on, and actually there doesnt appear to be any other earths with people on it anyway.
Full disclosure: I'm pretty much somewhere to the left of most people. Im not a socialist, but I'm a greeny humanitarian athiest non-nationalist who really does think people are more important than profits (but conceeds its rarely as simple as that).
I've noticed something quite interesting watching across the pacific at the political debates in the US, and one thing is that whats often being called a "conservative" often doesnt seem to be that well conservative. Its pretty much the same here.
I'm going to do something really fucking wierd for me and argue for traditional conservatism for a bit.
I've always taken conservatism to be a grand old tradition starting with Edmund Burke basically stating in a round about way that tradition trumps human reason. Now whilst that can be accused of anti-intellectualism (and its a correct accusation on some level) its good to look at the context historically.
a-priori reason up till at least the modern times lead to two major strands of politico-economic thought. The workerist communism of Karl marx, and the free market liberalism of Adam Smith. Both brilliantly argued, but both historical failures (some would argue free market liberalism, the dominant ideology of the west has infact redeemed in the past 100 or less years. maybe) itself in its ability to deliver positive outcomes for people.. Consequently conservatism argues for small business, authoritarian but not necesarily too economically intrusive government, against welfare , for monarchy (although Burke was fond of the liberal republicanism of the US revolution despite its origins in the french revolution he despised, but for diferent reasons, principally that he saw them as patriotic and without much of a tradition anyway to squash) and conservatism was largely protectionist. He didnt like the idea of a free market that would squash village and farm economys. Although Karl marx's mob wasnt around yet at the time of Burke, he would of passionately hated it, for its complete untraditionalism and anti-monarchism. Burke also strongly suggested traditional social mores always trumped 'experimental' philisophical social moralitys. If your social system came from a philosopher rather than a pulpit or king, chances are Burke hated it.
Now you can see some of that in the republican rhetoric, but not all of it, and the US is somewhat of a special case, in that the founding fathers republicanism was also profoundly classically liberal. The support base of the republicans tends to come from agricultural communitys, its supporters, and southern 'patriotic' sorts of sentimentalism. Basically a conservative electorate.
But heres the rub. Whilst the republicans (despite the rhetoric about small govt, a liberal idea) do tend to do local policy in a vaguely conservative manner, the foreign policy is deeply non conservative.
Burke always valued tradition. And that means that stomping traditional muslim countries and replacing govts with liberal democracys is a bad thing for conservatives, because conservatism understands that the local tradition is what 'evolved' under the 'best of all possible worlds' within that community. Many traditional conservatives have noted this, and pointed out that neo-conservatism (as many of these neuvo conservatives have dubbed themselves. When said 'conservatives espouse free market ideas, they will tend to be refered in academia as 'neo liberals') appears to have verry little respect for local tradition and thus isnt conservatism)
So yeah. What Im arguing is that at least on foreign policy , and on some level foreign trade, the conservatives of the US establishment appear to be anything but, and paradoxically the liberals appear to be more conservative.
Actually Im going to retract unreservedly the crank comment right now...
Reading his stuff, he's proposing an abstract machine as an alternative to the universal turing machine (also an abstract machine) that solves the problem of exceptions in algebra. He's suggesting it has alot of philisophical implications somewhat aligned with the way conventional algebra does. I havent quite grokked the central thesis of it, as my maths is way rusty, but its actually quite interesting.
The 0/0 = nullity stuff is a tragic little misstatement of what he's getting at.
The Book of Paragon is a web site that offers one solution to the centuries old philosophical conundrum of how minds relate to bodies. This site shows that the perspective simplex, or perspex, is a simple physical thing that is both a mind and a body. ....or philosopher alert. Havent worked it out yet:)
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. On further reading theres a signing of that code needed.
Eh.. Give it time.
The spec has a brilliant little hole in it already.
The VM's have an ability to run native code, oestensibly to 'patch' a compromised decoder.
So.................., it seems the first step to cracking blueray has been identified. What a fuck up.
From here theres a 60 instruction VM.Rebuild the VM firmware using the native code execution capacities, and make sure the new VM cant 'see' its outside changes, and you may well have a (near) perfect irreversible hack.
This babys gunna sink in months.
groff > troff
You cant trademark acronyms I think.
Regarding measuring quality of language by job ads:
:java 240000 .net 14000 :(
scheme: 0
lisp : 1
Quality doesnt sell.
Actually, I think us Aussies can probably be blamed for old Mel Gibson. :(
Thats the crazy thing. I cant remember the country, although I'll wager its either EU or Australia (back when the ACCC had teeth) , but I remember there was a govt ruling that blocking use of third party cartriges was anti-competitive. There was a similar ruling in Australia by the ACCC, if I remember correctly, that blocked import of DVD players that where locked to a single region due to the fact that it was deemed anticompetitive by blocking parallel imports. I think the howard government might of nuked that decision (I cant really remember)however.
I really do hope governments stand up to this and recognise that its anti-consumer, and anti-environmental (by blocking refilling).
Man. I do love my dinky little brother laser however. 3 years later, and still no sign of a need to replace the cartrige.
Last time I threw an egg it didnt fly :(
So yeah. Scientific testing confirms the theory!
Also, isnt this a repost story?
You know I've yet to ever see a single case of a law being "rewritten" by a "liberal" judge that wasnt infact simply a case of cancelling a clearly unconstitutional law.
You have a choice. Your constitutional rights, or politicans doing whatever the fuck they want. The Supreme court judges JOB is to curb-stomp laws that break your right. Its been that way (or at least in spirit) since magna carta, and thank fuck for that.
If you want judges that dont 'rewrite' laws, you first need to go thru the constitutional steps required to abandon the constitution.
The cost of the film isnt really the big issue (Although arguably 9 mil is 'big' no matter what way you look at it), its distribution. Micheal probably can finance this stuff himself. He probably CANT afford his own movie theatre chain to distribute it, so he's locked into someone elses game regardless.
Unfortunately its probably not as easy to just 'do a fugazi' and distribute movies via home copied cassette tapes or youtube. Well he could youtube it, but that dont fit well into the whole "I just spent 9mil on this" scenario.
[i]Okay, some people have obviously not thought this through to the logical conclusion...
Giving animals these rights means we don't just protect them from humans, we have to protect them from each other. If a chimp harms another chimp in some way, that crime will have to be investigated and the perpetrator brought to justice.
This can only lead to one thing - another spinoff of CSI.
Please, I beg of you, don't take us down that path.[/i]
Ahhh. But this is where I differ!
As I said, mostly rights are passive (I dont HAVE to act to enjoy a right), whereas responsibilitys are active (I HAVE to do something to fullfill a responsibility, even if that action is in the negative ie purposefully not doing something [like killing someone]).
But because of the passive vs active nature, we can say that a chimp is capable of enjoying a right , even if its not (capable of being?) aware of it, where as we cant sanely expect to make the chimpanzee behave along the dictates of a set of abstract responsibilitys.
You are right in pointing out the logical error, in that whereas we wouldnt let a profoundly intellectually disabled person run riot with a gun even if we accepted that person is uncapable of understanding it and therefore ought not be punished, whilst we might chose not to interfere with say a brutal monkey fight over a mate.
But ultimately thats where a degree of pragmatism kicks in, and we look for a more attuned 'right' and yes understand that 'human' and 'chimpanzee' rights are infact different.
Chris burkes suggestion of 'the right to be left alone' is almost perfect here. The chimp doesnt need to act responsibly to the right. It is infact a chimp and is perfectly entitled to go screwing about with other chimps. But WE can have the responsibility to just leave the chimp alone. And from that right OUR responsibilitys TO the chimp (dont kill, dont torture, dont denude its habitat) can be evaluated.
[quote]Let's say somebody gets very localized brain damage, and the pain center of their brain is now non-functional.
Do they still have rights?[/quote]
I didnt say I was singerian, more just saying that he's got an interesting perspective.
Mind you , I wonder if you completely knocked out the pain centre, you'd just be in a coma. Heroin seems to have that effect.
Interesting point however.
Oh look, I do understand that. And you are correct in saying that perhaps all the chimp 'wants' is to just be a chimp (Well, perhaps what he *wants* is easy food, a good looking mate, and some crazy fun branches to flip about on). I *AM* pretty certain the chimp doesnt want to be killed. If a chimp has learned a poachers gun will kill him, perhaps from observation, he's going to get damn terrified when he sees that gun because he doesnt *want* to die or be injured or hurt.
But perhaps my mistake is saying what the chimp 'expects' rights wise.
Maybe the trick is to look at how we frame 'rights' in this regard. Rights are oft constituted in limits. When I say "I have a right not to be killed!" , I also , implicit but not necesarily stated, mean "You have no right to kill me!".
So when we say "The chimpanzee has the right to life", we really mean "We have a responsibility to not kill the chimpanzee", and perhaps we might consider being a little cohersive about that. 'If someone shoots the chimp, charge the bastard with murder', we might say.
And perhaps you are right. The key one is "the chimp has the right to be a chimp in peace". Or in the negative "You have no right to go fucking with that chimpanzee and taking him away from the life he loves"
I think the problem with this is we really have to ask what does it *mean* to be a 'person'. Lets drop the word 'human' and use 'person', and *why* do we consider 'people' to be so important.
Lets take the example of someone so profoundly brain damaged that they walk about with a knife and stab someone thinking that person is a loaf of bread. Generally most reasonable minded people accept that as sad as it is, the person with the knife simply is not capable of aprehending the responsibility of not stabbing the person, as its understood that to enact a responsibility, you have to be rational enough to understand it.
So instead we might put the crazy person in some sort of care with some protections to make sure they cant do it, but we are not *punishing* them for failing that responsibility, because we understand they are incapable of fullfilling it.
But that doesnt mean the crazy person doesnt have some basic rights, such as the right to life, or the right to not be beaten up or whatever. Rights dont necesarily justify an ability to understand them to be valid. Responsibilitys do, because I'd argue rights are passive and responsibilitys are active.
Not ALL rights are removed from responsibility admitedly. Someone crazy enough to think its ok to shoot people for lols SHOULDNT have a gun. But someone with the rationality to be responsible with the gun arguably SHOULD have the right (assuming you think its a good right).
Now, lets look at the monkey. The monkey has a bunch of attributes we associate with personhood. They appear to be self aware. They appear to possess a basic level of empathy. They can, with the correct training, communicate basic abstract concepts. They fall in love, and love to fuck. They get angry and hate on stuff. Pretty much stuff "people" do.
But they cant read a book, or drive a car (perhaps) or hold down a steady job, or surf the net. But many "people" cant do this either. Infants cant. People with profound downs syndrome cant either, but we'd never deny them personhood.
Peter singer (slightly contraversial australian philosopher) argues the capacity for suffering is a pretty good determinant for judging the right to moral consideration, and who'd deny a monkeys capacity to suffer.
I'd suggest whilst the full range of 'human' rights would not fully be apropriate for monkeys, as they cant cope with the responsibilitys or understand them (although arming chimps WOULD be hilarious at a distance) , we can certainly derive a subset of rights they should be able to expect (the right to life, the right not to be tortured, the right for a human advocate to sue on their behalf for loss of rights, etc) based on the facts at hand.
If, as many scientists believe, chimps experience the world with similar emotional colour to us, vivisection and shit really does become an horrible horrible thing to contemplate empathetically.
Give the fuzzy guys some rights!
I've got muslim friends that are as 'moderate' as you or I, heck one even comes to the pub with me for a beer every now and then ("Oh dont worry, Allahs got bigger things to worry about mate"), and I've got whackjob christian aquaintances who think gays should be executed and muslims converted by force.
Moderation is moderation, and its the usual state of humans who have better things to worry about , like getting to work on time and making sure the kids are doing the homework.
Yeah. But dude. The aliens would drown in the firmament. Its full of water.
At least kids are reading and writing.
In australia I'll pay maybe $3 to fill any prescription of any drug I purchase (I'm on welfare currently)
The unemployment rate in my city is just a fraction under 5% and my last job my taxation was around 25%
Having been to hospital (free) a few times now, the service is [i]excellent[/i].
Why would you test hypothesis about this earth on other earths, when you have perfectly good data from this planet to test hypothesis on, and actually there doesnt appear to be any other earths with people on it anyway.
You actually hit a nail on the head.
Full disclosure: I'm pretty much somewhere to the left of most people. Im not a socialist, but I'm a greeny humanitarian athiest non-nationalist who really does think people are more important than profits (but conceeds its rarely as simple as that).
I've noticed something quite interesting watching across the pacific at the political debates in the US, and one thing is that whats often being called a "conservative" often doesnt seem to be that well conservative. Its pretty much the same here.
I'm going to do something really fucking wierd for me and argue for traditional conservatism for a bit.
I've always taken conservatism to be a grand old tradition starting with Edmund Burke basically stating in a round about way that tradition trumps human reason. Now whilst that can be accused of anti-intellectualism (and its a correct accusation on some level) its good to look at the context historically.
a-priori reason up till at least the modern times lead to two major strands of politico-economic thought. The workerist communism of Karl marx, and the free market liberalism of Adam Smith. Both brilliantly argued, but both historical failures (some would argue free market liberalism, the dominant ideology of the west has infact redeemed in the past 100 or less years. maybe) itself in its ability to deliver positive outcomes for people.. Consequently conservatism argues for small business, authoritarian but not necesarily too economically intrusive government, against welfare , for monarchy (although Burke was fond of the liberal republicanism of the US revolution despite its origins in the french revolution he despised, but for diferent reasons, principally that he saw them as patriotic and without much of a tradition anyway to squash) and conservatism was largely protectionist. He didnt like the idea of a free market that would squash village and farm economys. Although Karl marx's mob wasnt around yet at the time of Burke, he would of passionately hated it, for its complete untraditionalism and anti-monarchism. Burke also strongly suggested traditional social mores always trumped 'experimental' philisophical social moralitys. If your social system came from a philosopher rather than a pulpit or king, chances are Burke hated it.
Now you can see some of that in the republican rhetoric, but not all of it, and the US is somewhat of a special case, in that the founding fathers republicanism was also profoundly classically liberal. The support base of the republicans tends to come from agricultural communitys, its supporters, and southern 'patriotic' sorts of sentimentalism. Basically a conservative electorate.
But heres the rub. Whilst the republicans (despite the rhetoric about small govt, a liberal idea) do tend to do local policy in a vaguely conservative manner, the foreign policy is deeply non conservative.
Burke always valued tradition. And that means that stomping traditional muslim countries and replacing govts with liberal democracys is a bad thing for conservatives, because conservatism understands that the local tradition is what 'evolved' under the 'best of all possible worlds' within that community. Many traditional conservatives have noted this, and pointed out that neo-conservatism (as many of these neuvo conservatives have dubbed themselves. When said 'conservatives espouse free market ideas, they will tend to be refered in academia as 'neo liberals') appears to have verry little respect for local tradition and thus isnt conservatism)
So yeah. What Im arguing is that at least on foreign policy , and on some level foreign trade, the conservatives of the US establishment appear to be anything but, and paradoxically the liberals appear to be more conservative.
Its an odd conundrum.
Im happy to point out worrying trends in the UK and Britain.
But to be sure, Im verry fucking worried about trends in my own australia too.
And its because our asshole "conservative" government is happy to cherry pick the worst of both countries.
The loss of freedom to our own governments is a *western* phenomena on a global scale.
As the old activist saying goes. Think global act local.
Successfull means "not being extinct".
Thats only an "inconsistancy in evolutionary theory" if your an illiterate creationist hick.
Actually Im going to retract unreservedly the crank comment right now...
Reading his stuff, he's proposing an abstract machine as an alternative to the universal turing machine (also an abstract machine) that solves the problem of exceptions in algebra. He's suggesting it has alot of philisophical implications somewhat aligned with the way conventional algebra does. I havent quite grokked the central thesis of it, as my maths is way rusty, but its actually quite interesting.
The 0/0 = nullity stuff is a tragic little misstatement of what he's getting at.
ruh ruh. Crank alert.
....or philosopher alert. Havent worked it out yet :)
Heres his book
The Book of Paragon is a web site that offers one solution to the centuries old philosophical conundrum of how minds relate to bodies. This site shows that the perspective simplex, or perspex, is a simple physical thing that is both a mind and a body.
How much nothing can you fit in nothing?
none. one nothing. Ten nothings. Twenty nothings. A billion nothings. Nothing * Anything = nothing.
Its not a number. Its a nonsense.