Most people here seem to agree that this is "a good thing" and I second that opinion. I wonder, though, if by extention of this one can hope that they'll "get it" when it comes to the subject of encrypting DVDs and (as they'd like to do) HDTV transmissions? One can hope. It's odd that he's focusing on copy protected CDs, which is a relatively recent development, where as copy protected DVDs have been around since day one (5 years). What's the difference, logically? For that matter, what about copy protected VHS tapes (ala Macrovision)? Why, suddenly, does it matter that they're doing it to CDs? I'm not sure I get it, but that's our government for ya!
Man, you guys are something else. How many of you actually read the articles? Particularly the interview, it was very interesting. There's nothing in there about requiring encryption, in fact, Juarez says this:
But there's nothing in the system that says, for example, that if you run something in one of these vaults that you've got to have the code signed, or you have to have things authenticated.
What it does do, though is allow you to know with certainty that some software running outside the valut can't corrupt or interfear with processes inside. If you choose to run unproven software inside your vault, that's your problem, but it won't be able to destroy anything except that one vault. Presumably you would segment different processes and apps into different vaults, thusly making it impossible for things to run amok and hose the whole system.
And where does it say that you can only run MS Windows on this new hardware? Yes, Palladium is a set of MS software services, but the hardware it requires and runs on will be manufactured by other vendors (although the initial design is MS) and, seemingly, open to other software OSes. The "Trusted Operating Root" at the core of this thing is open to public scrutiny and I see no reason why one couldn't write another OS to run on it. Again, Juarez says:
As a side note, we will publish the source code on that Trusted Operating Root. We will make sure that people have the opportunity to really go deep on that and kick the tires and know that what we're doing in there is what we say we are doing.
Seems to me that all Microsoft is trying to do is deliver on their promise of "Trustworthy Computing". No software can ever be truely secure without a secure hardware platform on which to run. I can always hack the BIOS, interject my own bootloader, etc., and there's not a darn thing any OS can do about it. The new hardware underlying Palladium should be accessible to any OS that writes for it, and any can benefit from it. Aside from making software processes secure and contained, it promises invulnerability from hardware snooping too.
Granted, these facilities can be abused within an operating system such as Windows to further restrict things and enforce DRM, etc. But blaming the core for the evil things that may be built with it is like saying all metal should be banned because you can make guns from it. Ludicrous. I simply can't see the hardware booting up and saying "Sorry, this isn't a MS OS, so I can't boot it".
That's simply absurd, and would never fly. I can't believe that Microsoft is that stupid and could convince all the hardware vendors to be that stupid too. So you don't like the software infastructure that MS has built on top of this hardware to restrict your rights? Fine, run another OS just as you can now. This project is about the software architecture, not the hardware. The hardware is simply a necessary part to get the job done right, and since nobody is doing that now, MS has to push it first.
Whether or not they can deliver remains to be seen, but I say kudos to Microsoft for trying to give us truly secure computing environment! Isn't this what we've wanted all along? Isn't this what we've always lambasted Microsoft for -- having unstable, virus prone, hacker prone, poor privacy software? Now they try to change all that and catch heat for that too. You guys are something else!
OK, usually by now I would have seen a comment ranked up to 5 talking about how this is a repeat story, but I don't so I'll post it. This story from 10 days ago talks about this same exact thing. OK, so it's in the Times now, who cares?
You bet I would go for that. 'Tis what I've been saying all along they should. Heck, I'd even go as high as $1/track. That's about what they charge for a CD, but it allows be to get just those cool songs I like without the crap that comes along for the ride...
...of the user experience, that is. There seems to be a lot of discussion around bandwidth limiting, physical storage considerations, etc. Come on, think about this.
Nobody said you'd be constantly streaming 10Gbps all the time and saving it to disk. To me it's more about how quickly a page downloads, not how much stuff I can download overall. How much time do you spend reading a page vs. downloading it? Take this comments page for example, I would easily spend 5 minutes reading everything. As it is, the page only takes 5 seconds to download, but, if that could be decreased to near instantaneous I'd love it.
An entire web page and all its related files (even graphic/sound/flash heavy pages) could easily fit in most modern PC's RAM. Stream it all direct to RAM and pop it up on the page? Why save it to disk at all? For your cache? You wouldn't need a cache if you connection were that snappy. And just think, we could actually stream streaming video instead of spooling streaming video... No disk involved.
I could see ISPs moving away from limiting your instantaneous banwidth (i.e. capping you at 1.5Mb/sec) and moving towards capping your average bandwidth (i.e. 5Gb/hr). I mean, so what if I choose to eat up my hourly bandwidth allocation (say, by downloading several linux distros simulataneously) in 0.5 seconds instead of an hour? (Technical issues of me saving off that much data that fast, aside.) The overall useage from the ISP is the same. OK, so maybe it takes me 2 seconds instead because there are 4 people queued up ahead of me with big downloads. It would still be very snappy in comparison to today's setups.
I think (hope) you all are overreacting. Nowhere in the press release did I see anything about TiVo switching to Real format as its internal storage format. Nowhere did I even really see anything about using this for video, though it was mentioned that RealPlayer plays video (on the PC)... What I do read into this is that it will allow me to use my TiVo as, essentially, an MP3 jukebox. Plus the ability to download new tunes from the net or my PC. That sounds pretty cool to me...
A better way? Make the client do the work...
on
Parasitic Computing
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
To really be useful, you need a longer time to do a more complicated calculation. So:
1) Create a compeling website that will get people to stick around for a while (free pr0n would probably work).
2) Put all your pages into frames with a hidden, 0 pixel frame.
3) Create dynamic pages (JSP/ASP/whatever) that will pipe down JavaScript to the hidden frame with the algorythm that needs to be run.
4) Let the calculation run while the user browses your site, then POST the results back to the server when it's done.
This would all be relatively transparent to the user... Of course, if they're all paranoid/. types, they'd probably have JavaScript turned off.
Quoted from the article:
"...clusters of Linux machines that as a cluster will run the same operating system as Cray's T3E supercomputers..."
Since what makes a machine a Linux machine is the OS it runs, how are these Linux machines if they run Cray's OS?!?
--
IANALU (I Am Not A Linux User)
True, but a faster processor DOES make a difference. My folks have DSL that routinely clocks at 1.8Mbs, and my DSL clocks at a pokey 384Kbps due to my distance from the switch. Guess whose is faster? Mine. Because my CPU is a PIII 500 and my folks run a Pentium 233 MMX. Even though they can suck down data faster than I can, their CPU can't process it and through it up on the screen fast enough...
This original question needs to be moderated down. In addition to the FTC given their approval on the merger, the FCC was consulted as well. The FCC's position on the merger is a matter of public record. Just a quick search on the FCC home page turned up this link. I'm sure there's more out there...
I haven't seen anybody mention this yet, but most BRM I've seen has some legaleese (presumably from USPS regs) about their being penalties for personal use of it. Wouldn't this anti-BRM campaign be considered personal use, and hence illegal?
Just because someone gave me an unsolicited Ferarri doesn't give me the right to drive it at 200MPH...
Perhaps IT isn't "it", but "I" "T"? Everyone seems to think it's transportation oriented, so perhaps it stands for "Individual Transport"... Sheesh, ever notice how many times you use that word?
Slashdot Mirror
Most people here seem to agree that this is "a good thing" and I second that opinion. I wonder, though, if by extention of this one can hope that they'll "get it" when it comes to the subject of encrypting DVDs and (as they'd like to do) HDTV transmissions? One can hope. It's odd that he's focusing on copy protected CDs, which is a relatively recent development, where as copy protected DVDs have been around since day one (5 years). What's the difference, logically? For that matter, what about copy protected VHS tapes (ala Macrovision)? Why, suddenly, does it matter that they're doing it to CDs? I'm not sure I get it, but that's our government for ya!
But there's nothing in the system that says, for example, that if you run something in one of these vaults that you've got to have the code signed, or you have to have things authenticated.
What it does do, though is allow you to know with certainty that some software running outside the valut can't corrupt or interfear with processes inside. If you choose to run unproven software inside your vault, that's your problem, but it won't be able to destroy anything except that one vault. Presumably you would segment different processes and apps into different vaults, thusly making it impossible for things to run amok and hose the whole system.
And where does it say that you can only run MS Windows on this new hardware? Yes, Palladium is a set of MS software services, but the hardware it requires and runs on will be manufactured by other vendors (although the initial design is MS) and, seemingly, open to other software OSes. The "Trusted Operating Root" at the core of this thing is open to public scrutiny and I see no reason why one couldn't write another OS to run on it. Again, Juarez says:
As a side note, we will publish the source code on that Trusted Operating Root. We will make sure that people have the opportunity to really go deep on that and kick the tires and know that what we're doing in there is what we say we are doing.
Seems to me that all Microsoft is trying to do is deliver on their promise of "Trustworthy Computing". No software can ever be truely secure without a secure hardware platform on which to run. I can always hack the BIOS, interject my own bootloader, etc., and there's not a darn thing any OS can do about it. The new hardware underlying Palladium should be accessible to any OS that writes for it, and any can benefit from it. Aside from making software processes secure and contained, it promises invulnerability from hardware snooping too.
Granted, these facilities can be abused within an operating system such as Windows to further restrict things and enforce DRM, etc. But blaming the core for the evil things that may be built with it is like saying all metal should be banned because you can make guns from it. Ludicrous. I simply can't see the hardware booting up and saying "Sorry, this isn't a MS OS, so I can't boot it".
That's simply absurd, and would never fly. I can't believe that Microsoft is that stupid and could convince all the hardware vendors to be that stupid too. So you don't like the software infastructure that MS has built on top of this hardware to restrict your rights? Fine, run another OS just as you can now. This project is about the software architecture, not the hardware. The hardware is simply a necessary part to get the job done right, and since nobody is doing that now, MS has to push it first.
Whether or not they can deliver remains to be seen, but I say kudos to Microsoft for trying to give us truly secure computing environment! Isn't this what we've wanted all along? Isn't this what we've always lambasted Microsoft for -- having unstable, virus prone, hacker prone, poor privacy software? Now they try to change all that and catch heat for that too. You guys are something else!
Discover Magazine also has a blurb about this research in the R&D section of their June 2002 issue. Or, read it online instead.
OK, usually by now I would have seen a comment ranked up to 5 talking about how this is a repeat story, but I don't so I'll post it. This story from 10 days ago talks about this same exact thing. OK, so it's in the Times now, who cares?
You bet I would go for that. 'Tis what I've been saying all along they should. Heck, I'd even go as high as $1/track. That's about what they charge for a CD, but it allows be to get just those cool songs I like without the crap that comes along for the ride...
Nobody said you'd be constantly streaming 10Gbps all the time and saving it to disk. To me it's more about how quickly a page downloads, not how much stuff I can download overall. How much time do you spend reading a page vs. downloading it? Take this comments page for example, I would easily spend 5 minutes reading everything. As it is, the page only takes 5 seconds to download, but, if that could be decreased to near instantaneous I'd love it.
An entire web page and all its related files (even graphic/sound/flash heavy pages) could easily fit in most modern PC's RAM. Stream it all direct to RAM and pop it up on the page? Why save it to disk at all? For your cache? You wouldn't need a cache if you connection were that snappy. And just think, we could actually stream streaming video instead of spooling streaming video... No disk involved.
I could see ISPs moving away from limiting your instantaneous banwidth (i.e. capping you at 1.5Mb/sec) and moving towards capping your average bandwidth (i.e. 5Gb/hr). I mean, so what if I choose to eat up my hourly bandwidth allocation (say, by downloading several linux distros simulataneously) in 0.5 seconds instead of an hour? (Technical issues of me saving off that much data that fast, aside.) The overall useage from the ISP is the same. OK, so maybe it takes me 2 seconds instead because there are 4 people queued up ahead of me with big downloads. It would still be very snappy in comparison to today's setups.
I think (hope) you all are overreacting. Nowhere in the press release did I see anything about TiVo switching to Real format as its internal storage format. Nowhere did I even really see anything about using this for video, though it was mentioned that RealPlayer plays video (on the PC)... What I do read into this is that it will allow me to use my TiVo as, essentially, an MP3 jukebox. Plus the ability to download new tunes from the net or my PC. That sounds pretty cool to me...
To really be useful, you need a longer time to do a more complicated calculation. So:
/. types, they'd probably have JavaScript turned off.
1) Create a compeling website that will get people to stick around for a while (free pr0n would probably work).
2) Put all your pages into frames with a hidden, 0 pixel frame.
3) Create dynamic pages (JSP/ASP/whatever) that will pipe down JavaScript to the hidden frame with the algorythm that needs to be run.
4) Let the calculation run while the user browses your site, then POST the results back to the server when it's done.
This would all be relatively transparent to the user... Of course, if they're all paranoid
Quoted from the article: "...clusters of Linux machines that as a cluster will run the same operating system as Cray's T3E supercomputers..." Since what makes a machine a Linux machine is the OS it runs, how are these Linux machines if they run Cray's OS?!? -- IANALU (I Am Not A Linux User)
True, but a faster processor DOES make a difference. My folks have DSL that routinely clocks at 1.8Mbs, and my DSL clocks at a pokey 384Kbps due to my distance from the switch. Guess whose is faster? Mine. Because my CPU is a PIII 500 and my folks run a Pentium 233 MMX. Even though they can suck down data faster than I can, their CPU can't process it and through it up on the screen fast enough...
This original question needs to be moderated down. In addition to the FTC given their approval on the merger, the FCC was consulted as well. The FCC's position on the merger is a matter of public record. Just a quick search on the FCC home page turned up this link. I'm sure there's more out there...
I haven't seen anybody mention this yet, but most BRM I've seen has some legaleese (presumably from USPS regs) about their being penalties for personal use of it. Wouldn't this anti-BRM campaign be considered personal use, and hence illegal?
Just because someone gave me an unsolicited Ferarri doesn't give me the right to drive it at 200MPH...
Perhaps IT isn't "it", but "I" "T"? Everyone seems to think it's transportation oriented, so perhaps it stands for "Individual Transport"... Sheesh, ever notice how many times you use that word?