Actually, the problem you raise exists even today. I can use Hymn to strip protection from iTunes tracks and DeCSS to rip a protected DVD. The point is there is no _legal_ way to play music on another device which is the whole point the EU is trying to address.
The idea here is not to circumvent DRM - that would still be illegal or otherwise restricted - but to permit any device/any OS/any app to play the music you legally own.
The advantage of this is it permits the market to decide what DRM is best and most consumer accepted - which may mean no DRM or some supper consumer friendly DRM - without limiting consumer choice or forcing individuals or companies to use government mandated technology.
The government is stepping in to keep the consumer from harm and/or to ensure the market is functioning properly by attempting to regulate some degree of interoperability. The government has done this many times to very positive effect. In many cases such interoperability leads to much greater choice and much lower cost. If the government failed to do that choice would exist but it would be expensive and difficult to obtain because alternatives would have a significant market disadvantage. So, in summary, the whole point here is to give you choice, not to butt into your business.
I too wish for lossless, DRM free, music with the breadth of the iTunes store.
However, in absence of that, I think a law, that essentially says that any digital product that is sold or otherwise licensed to a consumer (DRM or not) implicitly includes a license to the software required to play that media on the device of the consumers choice, would be the next best thing.
Needless to say, the software, or at least the specification to create the software, would need to be made available to any company or individual wishing to create software or devices inter-operable with that media.
The whole point of these chips is to carry 'biometric' information. Their called 'biometric passports' for a reason. Anyway, a biometric passport carries, at a minimum, your picture, which will be displayed to the immigration agent, so unless the terrorist/criminal has a make-up job that alone will catch them.
The EU versions (excluding the UK) carry your fingerprints. The US version has space for additional biometrics so you'll see either fingerprints or retinal scans on those as well in the near future as a 'second stage' check if there is a question about the validity of the passport holder.
A copy of 'biometric' passport information has no value in a security context. If a copy of a passport is created using the biometric information then, obviously, that biometric information will not match the passport holder which will mean he/she will be identified as carrying a forged passport. If the biometrics are changed the digest of the passport information will be invalid and so, again, he/she will be identified as carrying a forged passport.
This is really only an issue because someone can get your personal information (for use in, for example, financial identity fraud) without having to actually open any of your mail.
A copy of 'biometric' passport information has no value in a security context. If a copy of a passport is created using the biometric information then, obviously, that biometric information will not match the passport holder which will mean he/she will be identified as carrying a forged passport. If the biometrics are changed the digest of the passport information will be invalid and so, again, he/she will be identified as carrying a forged passport.
This is really only an issue because someone can get your personal information (for use in, for example, financial identity fraud) without having to actually open any of your mail.
No, I think it is you are missing the point. If you *copy* the chip you will copy the picture / fingerprints of the original owner of the passport. You will thus be immediately caught when attempting to use the passport because the 'biometrics' will not match. If you change the picture or other biometrics the key of the password will no longer be valid and thus it will be identified as a forgery.
So the fact that someone can copy your the chip is more of a privacy issue then a security issue.
Costco sells this Samsung rechargeable battery kit with the charger, 4 AA batteries, and 2 AAA batteries for USD15-20. Rechargeable are are cheap and also good for the environment:-)
And before you say business people don't play games I would like to point out that I am, in fact, a business person (in the general definition of that term). We don't spend our free time looking at spreadsheets you know;-)
I went to China for an Intel sponsored event once and they server dog stew. I tried a bite. It was not to my taste... nothing like chicken... and I also had issues with the idea of eating a dog.
I am not sure why 6-16% overhead (or for that matter 50% overhead) is an issue when the system is idle. After all, 6-16% of an idle system (utilized at, say, 10% is less than 2 % of the overall system capacity).
On the server, if you are bottlencked on IO the incremental cost of a microkernel will be minimal (bus utilization overhead which is MUCH smaller than 6%). The only case where you would pay the full penalty of a microkernel is when you are bottlenceked on the CPU or when you are bottlnecked on the bus which is quite rare.
I might be so bold to suggest that the cases where windows has higher performance than Linux are greater than where Linux has higher performance than a Micrkernel. So, by your logic, from a performance standpoint, Windows might be the best choice.
Ok, but, honestly, does your system really run at 100% CPU all the time. I have tested this over a 1000+ hours and my average CPU utilization when the system is NOT idle (that is, when I am interacting with it) is 3.07% and the non-idle % of time when the CPU is over 80% is 0.000062% and the % of non-idle time that the CPU is 100% is so small it shows as 0%.
So, I am thinking that maybe I have 6-14% to spare.
The QNX Neutrino kernel is a very good microkernel implementation (albeit not as purist as, say the Ka micro-kernel line, but the fact that it is not open makes it unusable.
The sheduler, for example, is real time only so for non-real time applications is questionable at best. A simple problem to address in the open source world but, apparently "not a high priority" for the manufacturer of this fine technology.
-rant-
I fail to understand the point of closed source kernel implementations. The kernel is now a commodity.
It is widelly believed that the reason the Titanic sunk was because certain flood doors in the engine compartment were open. So, in fact, the reason why it sunk could be attributed to lack of isolation of the compartments.:-)
Also, you know, I am not sure there is a kernel anology to "ice berg tore along the side".;-)
Second, the goal of a microkernel is not to solve 100% of all hardware access problems. It is to isolate hardware access to specific components (which are as small as possible) so that the footprint of those components which can take down a kernel is significantly reduced. So, in your USB example, it is true that the DMA host controller driver in a microkernel can DMA over kernel memory but the point is that any other driver communicating with the USB host controller driver does not require the hardware access privilege greatly reducing the likelihood of failure (from a faulty mouse driver, say).
Ok, well you say you are a Linux kernel hacker and you have worked with a microkernel OS but you have made numerous relatively questionable technical assertions which you have conveniently neglected to exemplify.
Firstly, microkernel component interaction does not increase deadlocks and race conditions. Your experience may be related to real-time environments where priority inversion does cause problems but this is not something unique to microkernels. Please consider that your argument would imply that there is something inherently problematic with IPC and mutli-image applications which, given their predominance ( Oracle, SAP, JDEdwards ), appears not to be the case.
Second, the goal of a microkernel is not to solve 100% of all hardware access problems. It is to isolate hardware access to specific components (which are as small as possible) so that the footprint of those components which can take down a kernel is significantly reduced. So, in your USB example, it is true that the DMA host controller driver in a microkernel can DMA over kernel memory but the point is that any other driver communicating with the DMA host controller does not require the hardware access privilege greatly reducing the likelihood of failure (from a faulty mouse driver, say).
Finally, having said all that, I do not disagree that Tanenbaum is trying to sell books but his books do contain well considered and well research arguments. You might consider reading one of those books so that your future posts are a bit better considered.
I work for a company that sells product to Fortune 500 IT shops and I can assure you that this is _absolutely_ true. Why? Because the CPU utilization of an average enterprise system is 5%. Increasing that utilization to 10% (that would be a 100% performance overhead) for increased security is a no brainer.
When fully operational, the Energy Department installation will produce a pulsing neutron stream 10 times more intense than that of any other research facility in the world. That stream will let scientists look deeper into the structure and dynamics of different materials.
A hugenumber of largelly computer literate people have filled out a 100+ question profile questionaire on MySpace providing vast amounts of personal information to MySpace and to thier "friends" (many of which they have never actually met).
I confess I am not a chemist but does the process of actually growing the biomass to turn into biodiesel not take out at least as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as you put out of the tailpipe. If so, that would be good, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the problem you raise exists even today. I can use Hymn to strip protection from iTunes tracks and DeCSS to rip a protected DVD. The point is there is no _legal_ way to play music on another device which is the whole point the EU is trying to address.
The idea here is not to circumvent DRM - that would still be illegal or otherwise restricted - but to permit any device/any OS/any app to play the music you legally own.
The advantage of this is it permits the market to decide what DRM is best and most consumer accepted - which may mean no DRM or some supper consumer friendly DRM - without limiting consumer choice or forcing individuals or companies to use government mandated technology.
]{
The government is stepping in to keep the consumer from harm and/or to ensure the market is functioning properly by attempting to regulate some degree of interoperability. The government has done this many times to very positive effect. In many cases such interoperability leads to much greater choice and much lower cost. If the government failed to do that choice would exist but it would be expensive and difficult to obtain because alternatives would have a significant market disadvantage. So, in summary, the whole point here is to give you choice, not to butt into your business.
]{
I too wish for lossless, DRM free, music with the breadth of the iTunes store.
However, in absence of that, I think a law, that essentially says that any digital product that is sold or otherwise licensed to a consumer (DRM or not) implicitly includes a license to the software required to play that media on the device of the consumers choice, would be the next best thing.
Needless to say, the software, or at least the specification to create the software, would need to be made available to any company or individual wishing to create software or devices inter-operable with that media.
]{
The whole point of these chips is to carry 'biometric' information. Their called 'biometric passports' for a reason. Anyway, a biometric passport carries, at a minimum, your picture, which will be displayed to the immigration agent, so unless the terrorist/criminal has a make-up job that alone will catch them.
The EU versions (excluding the UK) carry your fingerprints. The US version has space for additional biometrics so you'll see either fingerprints or retinal scans on those as well in the near future as a 'second stage' check if there is a question about the validity of the passport holder.
]{
A copy of 'biometric' passport information has no value in a security context. If a copy of a passport is created using the biometric information then, obviously, that biometric information will not match the passport holder which will mean he/she will be identified as carrying a forged passport. If the biometrics are changed the digest of the passport information will be invalid and so, again, he/she will be identified as carrying a forged passport.
This is really only an issue because someone can get your personal information (for use in, for example, financial identity fraud) without having to actually open any of your mail.
]{
I cannot believe this was voted insightful.
A copy of 'biometric' passport information has no value in a security context. If a copy of a passport is created using the biometric information then, obviously, that biometric information will not match the passport holder which will mean he/she will be identified as carrying a forged passport. If the biometrics are changed the digest of the passport information will be invalid and so, again, he/she will be identified as carrying a forged passport.
This is really only an issue because someone can get your personal information (for use in, for example, financial identity fraud) without having to actually open any of your mail.
]{
No, I think it is you are missing the point. If you *copy* the chip you will copy the picture / fingerprints of the original owner of the passport. You will thus be immediately caught when attempting to use the passport because the 'biometrics' will not match. If you change the picture or other biometrics the key of the password will no longer be valid and thus it will be identified as a forgery.
So the fact that someone can copy your the chip is more of a privacy issue then a security issue.
]{
Are there presently any UWB / USB-IF devices on the marker? If so, could anyone share some links
]{
Costco sells this Samsung rechargeable battery kit with the charger, 4 AA batteries, and 2 AAA batteries for USD15-20. Rechargeable are are cheap and also good for the environment :-)
]{
Well, umm, what about WoW?
;-)
And before you say business people don't play games I would like to point out that I am, in fact, a business person (in the general definition of that term). We don't spend our free time looking at spreadsheets you know
]{
Although the article propably still has some merit the actual ban on laptops has now been lifted in the UK.
http://www.fcw.com/article95659-08-14-06-Web
]{
I went to China for an Intel sponsored event once and they server dog stew. I tried a bite. It was not to my taste ... nothing like chicken ... and I also had issues with the idea of eating a dog.
]{
I am not sure why 6-16% overhead (or for that matter 50% overhead) is an issue when the system is idle. After all, 6-16% of an idle system (utilized at, say, 10% is less than 2 % of the overall system capacity).
On the server, if you are bottlencked on IO the incremental cost of a microkernel will be minimal (bus utilization overhead which is MUCH smaller than 6%). The only case where you would pay the full penalty of a microkernel is when you are bottlenceked on the CPU or when you are bottlnecked on the bus which is quite rare.
I might be so bold to suggest that the cases where windows has higher performance than Linux are greater than where Linux has higher performance than a Micrkernel. So, by your logic, from a performance standpoint, Windows might be the best choice.
]{
Ok, but, honestly, does your system really run at 100% CPU all the time. I have tested this over a 1000+ hours and my average CPU utilization when the system is NOT idle (that is, when I am interacting with it) is 3.07% and the non-idle % of time when the CPU is over 80% is 0.000062% and the % of non-idle time that the CPU is 100% is so small it shows as 0%.
So, I am thinking that maybe I have 6-14% to spare.
]{
The QNX Neutrino kernel is a very good microkernel implementation (albeit not as purist as, say the Ka micro-kernel line, but the fact that it is not open makes it unusable.
The sheduler, for example, is real time only so for non-real time applications is questionable at best. A simple problem to address in the open source world but, apparently "not a high priority" for the manufacturer of this fine technology.
-rant-
I fail to understand the point of closed source kernel implementations. The kernel is now a commodity.
-/rant-
]{
It is widelly believed that the reason the Titanic sunk was because certain flood doors in the engine compartment were open. So, in fact, the reason why it sunk could be attributed to lack of isolation of the compartments. :-)
;-)
Also, you know, I am not sure there is a kernel anology to "ice berg tore along the side".
]{
The third paragraph should read ...
Second, the goal of a microkernel is not to solve 100% of all hardware access problems. It is to isolate hardware access to specific components (which are as small as possible) so that the footprint of those components which can take down a kernel is significantly reduced. So, in your USB example, it is true that the DMA host controller driver in a microkernel can DMA over kernel memory but the point is that any other driver communicating with the USB host controller driver does not require the hardware access privilege greatly reducing the likelihood of failure (from a faulty mouse driver, say).
]{
Ok, well you say you are a Linux kernel hacker and you have worked with a microkernel OS but you have made numerous relatively questionable technical assertions which you have conveniently neglected to exemplify.
Firstly, microkernel component interaction does not increase deadlocks and race conditions. Your experience may be related to real-time environments where priority inversion does cause problems but this is not something unique to microkernels. Please consider that your argument would imply that there is something inherently problematic with IPC and mutli-image applications which, given their predominance ( Oracle, SAP, JDEdwards ), appears not to be the case.
Second, the goal of a microkernel is not to solve 100% of all hardware access problems. It is to isolate hardware access to specific components (which are as small as possible) so that the footprint of those components which can take down a kernel is significantly reduced. So, in your USB example, it is true that the DMA host controller driver in a microkernel can DMA over kernel memory but the point is that any other driver communicating with the DMA host controller does not require the hardware access privilege greatly reducing the likelihood of failure (from a faulty mouse driver, say).
Finally, having said all that, I do not disagree that Tanenbaum is trying to sell books but his books do contain well considered and well research arguments. You might consider reading one of those books so that your future posts are a bit better considered.
]{
Of course this is not true!
I work for a company that sells product to Fortune 500 IT shops and I can assure you that this is _absolutely_ true. Why? Because the CPU utilization of an average enterprise system is 5%. Increasing that utilization to 10% (that would be a 100% performance overhead) for increased security is a no brainer.
]{
Actually, there are a number of these in North America http://www.sciner.com/Neutron/neutron_facilities_w orldwide.htm. The news here is that ....
When fully operational, the Energy Department installation will produce a pulsing neutron stream 10 times more intense than that of any other research facility in the world. That stream will let scientists look deeper into the structure and dynamics of different materials.
]{
Maybe Symantec failed to cooperate and the government is giving the something to think about in the form of a USD 1 Billion "fine" ;-)
]{
Surelly you jest ...
A hugenumber of largelly computer literate people have filled out a 100+ question profile questionaire on MySpace providing vast amounts of personal information to MySpace and to thier "friends" (many of which they have never actually met).
]{
I confess I am not a chemist but does the process of actually growing the biomass to turn into biodiesel not take out at least as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as you put out of the tailpipe. If so, that would be good, right?
]{
The link was added subsequently. Please do not denigrate those who are trying to help.
]{
It is a human interest story. If it gave any more scientific detail most humans - sadly - would lose interest.
]{