I see no science here whatsoever. What I see are questions akin to Bill Cosby's "Why is there air?"
This sort of exercise is usually done to popularise Wired-style crap for l33t-d00dz who want to think they are one the cutting edge of knowledge. All I can say is "Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy"
In the complaint filed by AMD you will see that Intel KK actually DOES ADMIT that on several occasions complaints brought under the JFTC were actually true. This is NOT SCO-like tactics. It is demonstrable fact.
I worked for Eastman Kodak in the UK in the 80s and one of my colleagues, Andy Green, developed something like this for the back of the hand. Like most biometrics, it worked fine in a test environment, but when it was shown as cool new technology on Tomorrow's World, a weekly tech programme on the BBC, guess what? It failed. Too many variables such as nervousness due to being on the telly, heat from the studio lighting, etc., etc.
I'm sure this - like most biometrics - will fail in the field.
Well, it's an opinion, not a ruling, and there is nothing to prevent a later decision by the court from revising, reversing or rendering opinions nugatory. As an obvious example, don't forget the early sittings of the Supreme Court have denied women the franchise.
The interesting thing about the split from my point of view was that it allied O'Connor (who wrote the dissent) and Thomas with Scalia and Rehnquist.
I read most of the opinions of SCOTUS, and the dissent in this case was a great piece of judicial writing, and very, very stinging. The dissent begins:
Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:
"An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority . . . . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. . . . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).
Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded - i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public - in the process.
This is some of the strongest language that I have ever seen in a dissent from O'Connor, and I am sure that it represents one of the widest divergences that this particular court has expressed. I think it will be tremendously interesting to see how this plays out.
My particular concern is that this appears to me to be a sweeping decision that that is being sweetened with the idea of pre-existingh checks and balances that will act as a bulwark against abuses. I simply don't believe this. Given the increasingly corporatist leanings of the executive and legislature, I am very, very sad to see the judiciary handing down this opinion, as I believe now that corporations will be able to force the exercise of eminent domain purely by financial muscle, and with an opinion of this sort from SCOTUS, it's going to be very, VERY difficult for people who want to stand against it.
It doesn't make it impossible for them to shut down a torrent, it simply makes it much harder. Instead of having a single site to shut down (the one hosting the tracker) in order to kill the torrent, they now have to shut down everyone with a complete copy (every seed).
I'm not sure they want to do this immediately: if they can keep enough people going through the "$3000 a pop" lawsuits, then they are generating revenue while cowing other potential sharers. Given that their figures for financial loss are pulled straight out of their arses anyway, they really have little to lose, while potentially scaring the shit out of people.
eventually found it on the floor behind a piece of pizza crust
You're lucky: mine keep slipping away quietly through wormholes in space to a world where they know they can enjoy a uniquely biroid lifestyle, responding to highly biro-oriented stimuli, and generally lead the biro equivalent of the good life.
You can't reliably prove security for anything other than the one-time pad. All you can do is prove that the attcks you have chosen will not work. Attempting to prove security is attmepting to prove a negative: namely that no attack more efficient than brute force exists.
Well, hardware-based crypto is not really that new: see http://www.computer.org/computer/homepage/1004/sec urity/ for example.
And it's not that difficult to peer review crypto accelerators. For a given input you get a given output. Since you are free to choose your input, the possibility that somebody could try and recognise test vectors and encrypt those correctly, while faking on non-test vectors becomes vanishingly small for a reasonably large set of pseudo-random test inputs, if you verify the output against an audited software implementation.
This reminds me on when I used to do computer-aded chemistry, and by far the most time consuming operations was computing second derivatives on non-bonded interactions. Somebody found out that there was a bunch of NVRAM on one of the microvax processors, and decided to experiment with putting the calculations in there. I guess this was like using a FGPA approach. It never happened as far as I know, but it was an interesting approach nonetheless...
Slashdot Mirror
Not allowed: /. has a patent on duping.
Marc J. Rockhind
Sounds like a real hard-ass!!
"The fingers you have used to dial are too fat. To obtain a special dialing wand, please mash the keypad with your palm now."
I see no science here whatsoever. What I see are questions akin to Bill Cosby's "Why is there air?"
This sort of exercise is usually done to popularise Wired-style crap for l33t-d00dz who want to think they are one the cutting edge of knowledge. All I can say is "Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy"
In the complaint filed by AMD you will see that Intel KK actually DOES ADMIT that on several occasions complaints brought under the JFTC were actually true. This is NOT SCO-like tactics. It is demonstrable fact.
What ever happened to personal responsibility?
It was acquired in a hostile takeover by Messrs Sue, Grabit and Runne...
I worked for Eastman Kodak in the UK in the 80s and one of my colleagues, Andy Green, developed something like this for the back of the hand. Like most biometrics, it worked fine in a test environment, but when it was shown as cool new technology on Tomorrow's World, a weekly tech programme on the BBC, guess what? It failed. Too many variables such as nervousness due to being on the telly, heat from the studio lighting, etc., etc.
I'm sure this - like most biometrics - will fail in the field.
He was treated as a heretic by the Jewish authorities.
Well, it's an opinion, not a ruling, and there is nothing to prevent a later decision by the court from revising, reversing or rendering opinions nugatory. As an obvious example, don't forget the early sittings of the Supreme Court have denied women the franchise.
I read most of the opinions of SCOTUS, and the dissent in this case was a great piece of judicial writing, and very, very stinging. The dissent begins:
Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote: Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded - i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public - in the process.
This is some of the strongest language that I have ever seen in a dissent from O'Connor, and I am sure that it represents one of the widest divergences that this particular court has expressed. I think it will be tremendously interesting to see how this plays out.
My particular concern is that this appears to me to be a sweeping decision that that is being sweetened with the idea of pre-existingh checks and balances that will act as a bulwark against abuses. I simply don't believe this. Given the increasingly corporatist leanings of the executive and legislature, I am very, very sad to see the judiciary handing down this opinion, as I believe now that corporations will be able to force the exercise of eminent domain purely by financial muscle, and with an opinion of this sort from SCOTUS, it's going to be very, VERY difficult for people who want to stand against it.
What price now the Fourth Amendment?
Actually, I think they're going to call it the iBle, and there will be more than one Book of Job...
It doesn't make it impossible for them to shut down a torrent, it simply makes it much harder. Instead of having a single site to shut down (the one hosting the tracker) in order to kill the torrent, they now have to shut down everyone with a complete copy (every seed).
I'm not sure they want to do this immediately: if they can keep enough people going through the "$3000 a pop" lawsuits, then they are generating revenue while cowing other potential sharers. Given that their figures for financial loss are pulled straight out of their arses anyway, they really have little to lose, while potentially scaring the shit out of people.
eventually found it on the floor behind a piece of pizza crust
You're lucky: mine keep slipping away quietly through wormholes in space to a world where they know they can enjoy a uniquely biroid lifestyle, responding to highly biro-oriented stimuli, and generally lead the biro equivalent of the good life.
Actually, I think the far worse scenario is if you found your parents' porn.
(Especially if it's more hardcore than anything you have.)
Worst of all is if your parents are the performers!!!
Well, at least it's not like Greece, where they use the same word for visitor and stranger: xenos, as in "xenophobia: fear and hatred of guests"
This is where technology can be most wisely spent, where it will have the greatest benefit, and where kids will actually learn about computers.
What about this story
You can't reliably prove security for anything other than the one-time pad. All you can do is prove that the attcks you have chosen will not work. Attempting to prove security is attmepting to prove a negative: namely that no attack more efficient than brute force exists.
Well, hardware-based crypto is not really that new: see http://www.computer.org/computer/homepage/1004/sec urity/ for example.
And it's not that difficult to peer review crypto accelerators. For a given input you get a given output. Since you are free to choose your input, the possibility that somebody could try and recognise test vectors and encrypt those correctly, while faking on non-test vectors becomes vanishingly small for a reasonably large set of pseudo-random test inputs, if you verify the output against an audited software implementation.
I waited. I upgraded. the DRM didn't lock me out.
And you think everybody will have the same experience as you? Solipsistic...
Then why did they do it in the first place?
Because it took the first case to set the precedent. Until then the law hadn't been tested. Now it has.
..it's still a Dell.
Actually, come to think of it, it must be made from
deltree wood!!!
This reminds me on when I used to do computer-aded chemistry, and by far the most time consuming operations was computing second derivatives on non-bonded interactions. Somebody found out that there was a bunch of NVRAM on one of the microvax processors, and decided to experiment with putting the calculations in there. I guess this was like using a FGPA approach. It never happened as far as I know, but it was an interesting approach nonetheless...
I think you're talking about a frenemy, or possibly a frenemy.
commiting grevious errors
Please tell me you're being ironical here...
the first thing they need to do is stop sucking.
Isn't there a well known and very profitable business model built on sucking? (Of course, the sucking has to stop sometime...)