Will memory be segmented in such a way that someone who is logged on as Administrator can't use a memory scanner on the open document, as it's instantiated in Word? If not, then if they are using streaming decryption through temporary buffers, will this defeat software that captures the buffers? What happens to this DRM scheme if someone dual boots to an older version of Windows, or runs inside a virtual machine? What happens if pieces of the physical hardware of the machine in question are replaced by custom IC's designed by first world threat nations, or other parties specifically to circumvent?
Fair enough, but that would mean you would have to have a lot more access to the machine than a typical user is allowed to have (we limit our users in every way possible, only allowing them to do their job, nothing more).
You'd like to think you do, but you don't. If you give your users physical access to the machine, they have absolute control over it.
So the only real way you can defeat this is by opening it in a non trusted application,...
No, he's correct. You'd have to cripple the entire operating system while the document was open. For example, you'd have to ensure that VRAM was inaccessable to the users, that nothing was paged out, that the memory of the application itself never stored the document in unencrypted form (impossible, if it's displayed), and so forth.
But in any case, nothing my digital camera can't defeat.
We're headed towards the "Paperless Office". The road is longer and bumpier than was first imagined, but we're getting there.
I'm sure I agree with you. There's the issue of a whole generation of workers preferring to use what's familiar to them. Meanwhile, the newest generation of workers are completely familiar with computers. I print mostly nothing. My wife prints everything. I'm not younger than my wife, however, I started with computers very young.
Meanwhile, things like "Electronic Paper" are right around the corner, which will satisfy many of the ones who prefer something tangible in their hands. I can imagine a sort of "single sheet" electronic paper "notepad," flexible, cool, portable, that you carry around your house. This will require an unheard of level of miniaturization and engineering, but really: it can't be all that far way.
Damn that's some creepy ass shit. As for the other poster, I'm imagining the spiders, looking at the cows, saying "if we pull this off, we're going to eat like Kings!".;)
BTW, they told me that if I did file a complaint or sue them they would disconnect all telephone wires to my home for a minimum of 5 years.
This is extortion (literally), and the maker of this threat could face a lengthy stay in the slammer. While such a lengthy stay in the slammer is mostly theoretical, the civil liabilities for having made this threat are not.
Recently, MySQL changed their client license to the GPL.
Use an old version of the software. Retroactive changes to licenses, having already been agreed to, are not lawful. You an use an old version of the software, with the old license.
"...how can ignorance of contract be any defense at all?"
A long standing tradition of common law is that for a contract to be legally binding, there must be a "meeting of the minds" between the parties, wherein the parties in question come to an understanding over what is being agreed.
C//
Re:Truly P2P if SOBIG.G contains the spam message
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 1
Most humorous military term:
"BOHICA". Bend over, here it comes again.:)
C//
Re:Truly P2P if SOBIG.G contains the spam message
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 1
Deliberately releasing a virus can earn you up to 10 years in the slammer.
Not quite sure what you're trying to say; irrespective or the truth or falseness of your statement, it would *nevertheless* be frivilous to bring an argument to court of the form that SCO has made regarding copyright law. When I say "frivolous," I mean in the legal sense, where a practitioner of law is expected to not make arguments contrary to the basics of fundamental law, and doing so is risking the ire and punishment of the court.
Hrm. In the sense of the common law, it *is* illegal to bring frivolous cases to court. Tortious interference is illegal, as is trade libel, and so forth. So I wouldn't be so sure about labeling what they are doing "not illegal," if I were you.
Most programmers, being in the field for a long time, use many different programming languages. You seem to believe that someone would pick *one* programming language. That's a wrong assumption.
I use a variant of sprintf that takes as its frist argument char**; if the value is null it allocates the appropriate space for you. While it does add the overhead of dynamic memory allocation to your program, it's a fire and forget sort of thing. One needs to remember to free the memory of course.
This was my feeling for years, before I picked up Python. Your fear is an irrational fear. The only legitimate problem I've run into with python programs are when functions get very long, and you'd like to quickly jump from begin-to-end of scope (or vice-versa). While a python-aware editor could do this for you, I don't use one, will never use one, and so have to occasionally tolerate that annoyance. Usually it's a good sign that the function needs to be refactored a bit, but so it is.
And the white space problems aren't as extant as most people think. For example, in Python, this is legal:
>>> a = [
1,
2,
3,
] >>> a [1, 2, 3] >>>
Note that Python, at cetain points, actually becomes white space (newline/indent) *insensitive*. As it turns out, it does so at all the places where you might want it to.
Python is about the most readable programming language ever written. That's saying a lot for it, and implies something about how it handles white space as well. For one, your eye is not overloaded with tons of symbols as it might be in, say, Perl.:)
I have my own indention procedures as well, but if I don't follow them precisely, my code doesn't gain unwanted "features" as a result.
"In theory, there is no difference between theory in practice, but in practice there is."
Sir, I have never had a python program gain "unwanted features" using the *theoretical* weakness that you believe exists. Further, I would assert that this problem seldom ever actually arises, amongst beginners and experienced Python coders alike.
Not particularly, as in Python you know not to do that. Myself, I have VIM macros for intenting and outcommenting and incommenting code in a wide variety of programming languages. What you are describing is what I call a "theoretical problem that does not turn out to be a problem in practice."
If I paste in a few quick lines of code for debug purposes, and it just happened to be indented differently than where I was pasting it, that would screw up the block closure unless...
Actually, the chances are it would generate a Syntax Error.
Stop right there. You *CANNOT DO THAT*. You could *SAY* you did, but that's not the same. You have no ability to be a legal first party to that sort of action. Declaring that something is now GPL'd is not the same as making it so.
I think the next step from intrusion-tolerance would be a system that logs intruder activity, determines how the intruder got in, and when the intruder leaves, cleans up whatever rootkits, etc. were left behind after logging everything it can about the event.
Imagine something like VMWare with "selective rollback". Because of the combinatorics, I'm not sure it's entirely possible (which is not to say that it's not partially possible), but it's certainly an idea worthy of pursuit in some form...
If someone out of state sues you (or a DA charges you with a criminal offense) in an out of state court, what can they possibly do to make you show up?
Not "showing up" for a lawsuit is really stupid. If the judge believes you're being deliberately recalcitrant, you lose by default. Collecting can be a pain, but that's a different issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Will memory be segmented in such a way that someone who is logged on as Administrator can't use a memory scanner on the open document, as it's instantiated in Word? If not, then if they are using streaming decryption through temporary buffers, will this defeat software that captures the buffers? What happens to this DRM scheme if someone dual boots to an older version of Windows, or runs inside a virtual machine? What happens if pieces of the physical hardware of the machine in question are replaced by custom IC's designed by first world threat nations, or other parties specifically to circumvent?
C//
Fair enough, but that would mean you would have to have a lot more access to the machine than a typical user is allowed to have (we limit our users in every way possible, only allowing them to do their job, nothing more).
You'd like to think you do, but you don't. If you give your users physical access to the machine, they have absolute control over it.
C//
So the only real way you can defeat this is by opening it in a non trusted application,...
No, he's correct. You'd have to cripple the entire operating system while the document was open. For example, you'd have to ensure that VRAM was inaccessable to the users, that nothing was paged out, that the memory of the application itself never stored the document in unencrypted form (impossible, if it's displayed), and so forth.
But in any case, nothing my digital camera can't defeat.
C//
We're headed towards the "Paperless Office". The road is longer and bumpier than was first imagined, but we're getting there.
I'm sure I agree with you. There's the issue of a whole generation of workers preferring to use what's familiar to them. Meanwhile, the newest generation of workers are completely familiar with computers. I print mostly nothing. My wife prints everything. I'm not younger than my wife, however, I started with computers very young.
Meanwhile, things like "Electronic Paper" are right around the corner, which will satisfy many of the ones who prefer something tangible in their hands. I can imagine a sort of "single sheet" electronic paper "notepad," flexible, cool, portable, that you carry around your house. This will require an unheard of level of miniaturization and engineering, but really: it can't be all that far way.
C//
Damn that's some creepy ass shit. As for the other poster, I'm imagining the spiders, looking at the cows, saying "if we pull this off, we're going to eat like Kings!". ;)
C//
Reminds me of that Mars book where ecoterrorists bring down their space elevator. It cracks around the whole world, like a giant whip.
C//
BTW, they told me that if I did file a complaint or sue them they would disconnect all telephone wires to my home for a minimum of 5 years.
This is extortion (literally), and the maker of this threat could face a lengthy stay in the slammer. While such a lengthy stay in the slammer is mostly theoretical, the civil liabilities for having made this threat are not.
C//
Read it. Interesting. So did you ever get accosted by some lawyer trying to tell you why you were all wrong? :)
C//
Recently, MySQL changed their client license to the GPL.
Use an old version of the software. Retroactive changes to licenses, having already been agreed to, are not lawful. You an use an old version of the software, with the old license.
C//
"...how can ignorance of contract be any defense at all?"
A long standing tradition of common law is that for a contract to be legally binding, there must be a "meeting of the minds" between the parties, wherein the parties in question come to an understanding over what is being agreed.
C//
Most humorous military term:
:)
"BOHICA". Bend over, here it comes again.
C//
Deliberately releasing a virus can earn you up to 10 years in the slammer.
C//
Not quite sure what you're trying to say; irrespective or the truth or falseness of your statement, it would *nevertheless* be frivilous to bring an argument to court of the form that SCO has made regarding copyright law. When I say "frivolous," I mean in the legal sense, where a practitioner of law is expected to not make arguments contrary to the basics of fundamental law, and doing so is risking the ire and punishment of the court.
C//
In the end, what SCO is doing isn't illegal,...
Hrm. In the sense of the common law, it *is* illegal to bring frivolous cases to court. Tortious interference is illegal, as is trade libel, and so forth. So I wouldn't be so sure about labeling what they are doing "not illegal," if I were you.
C//
Most programmers, being in the field for a long time, use many different programming languages. You seem to believe that someone would pick *one* programming language. That's a wrong assumption.
C//
I use a variant of sprintf that takes as its frist argument char**; if the value is null it allocates the appropriate space for you. While it does add the overhead of dynamic memory allocation to your program, it's a fire and forget sort of thing. One needs to remember to free the memory of course.
C//
This was my feeling for years, before I picked up Python. Your fear is an irrational fear. The only legitimate problem I've run into with python programs are when functions get very long, and you'd like to quickly jump from begin-to-end of scope (or vice-versa). While a python-aware editor could do this for you, I don't use one, will never use one, and so have to occasionally tolerate that annoyance. Usually it's a good sign that the function needs to be refactored a bit, but so it is.
:)
And the white space problems aren't as extant as most people think. For example, in Python, this is legal:
>>> a = [
1,
2,
3,
]
>>> a
[1, 2, 3]
>>>
Note that Python, at cetain points, actually becomes white space (newline/indent) *insensitive*. As it turns out, it does so at all the places where you might want it to.
Python is about the most readable programming language ever written. That's saying a lot for it, and implies something about how it handles white space as well. For one, your eye is not overloaded with tons of symbols as it might be in, say, Perl.
C//
I have my own indention procedures as well, but if I don't follow them precisely, my code doesn't gain unwanted "features" as a result.
"In theory, there is no difference between theory in practice, but in practice there is."
Sir, I have never had a python program gain "unwanted features" using the *theoretical* weakness that you believe exists. Further, I would assert that this problem seldom ever actually arises, amongst beginners and experienced Python coders alike.
C//
Which is still bad, but...
Not particularly, as in Python you know not to do that. Myself, I have VIM macros for intenting and outcommenting and incommenting code in a wide variety of programming languages. What you are describing is what I call a "theoretical problem that does not turn out to be a problem in practice."
C//
If I paste in a few quick lines of code for debug purposes, and it just happened to be indented differently than where I was pasting it, that would screw up the block closure unless...
Actually, the chances are it would generate a Syntax Error.
C//
Now suppose I release that code under the GPL.
Stop right there. You *CANNOT DO THAT*. You could *SAY* you did, but that's not the same. You have no ability to be a legal first party to that sort of action. Declaring that something is now GPL'd is not the same as making it so.
C//
I think the next step from intrusion-tolerance would be a system that logs intruder activity, determines how the intruder got in, and when the intruder leaves, cleans up whatever rootkits, etc. were left behind after logging everything it can about the event.
Imagine something like VMWare with "selective rollback". Because of the combinatorics, I'm not sure it's entirely possible (which is not to say that it's not partially possible), but it's certainly an idea worthy of pursuit in some form...
C//
"On July 15, 2003 Baloon Net became self aware."
Badly rehashed movies of a baloon-hosted machine intelligence sending assassin droids back in time soon to follow.
C//
If someone out of state sues you (or a DA charges you with a criminal offense) in an out of state court, what can they possibly do to make you show up?
Not "showing up" for a lawsuit is really stupid. If the judge believes you're being deliberately recalcitrant, you lose by default. Collecting can be a pain, but that's a different issue.
Alas, languages move past the desires of English teachers. "forte" for strength is a perfectly acceptible usage of the word. Sorry.
C//