If I gather correctly, the TPM takes care of providing decryption keys to the operating system once it can confirm the system is in a known state. What I still don't understand is how this "known state" together with the necessary decription keys are communicated to the TPM in the first place. Is there a central authority that takes care of this? If so, how would this affect Open Source operating systems?
Although the GPL has always covered modification, it has never covered modifications isolated from the act of redistribution. You were always able to make local modifications without being forced to disttribute those modifications to the public.
It isn't contingent upon public use, it is contingent upon modification of the original work, an action that has ALWAYS been covered by the GPL.
Although the GPL has always covered modification, it has never covered modifications when from the act of redistribution. You were always able to make local modifications without being forced to disttribute those modifications to the public.
Unless the source code is embedded in the executable itself, removing the source code from your servers does not constitute modification of the software. For that reason, such a feature is clearly contingent upon use rather than modification or redistribution.
The provision in the first draft was that if a project implemented a feature that had a command to download the source code, the web service provider had to keep this in-tact, otherwise, there was no requirement.
While this may be reasonable in certain situations, there are cases where no distribution is involved and therefore no further copying ever takes place (the best example of this being a set of server-side scripts). In such cases the requirement to provide the source code through a special command is contingent upon use ("public use") rather than copying, which in my opinion is contrary to the spirit of the original GPL.
Does this requirement still exist in the current draft of the GPL v3?
I'm surprised by the stupid comments found on the page concerning China's Tokamak device. I'm eager for the day when scientists finally manage to create a working fusion reactor. Here's what asimov had to say back in 1975.
I've heard about similar cases, and I think it sucks. That's why the lawsuit against Google bothers me so much. If their current fraud-detection process does not catch "enough" fraud, imagine how ridiculously strict it will have to become to accomplish such a difficult feat.
I've wondered what would happen if I used Ad-words on my blog and a person in my family happened to click on an interesting ad. Given it's a low-volume blog I'm sure that Google would be able to correlate the IP addresses, so I imagine such a thing would result in the quick cancellation of my ad-words account. That's part of the reason I don't use ad-words on my blog.
But they are not misrepresenting the number of clicks. Not doing "enough" to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate clicks is not at all the same thing as commiting fraud.
It's easy to say that Google is not doing a good enough job identifying illegitimate clicks, but it's not very easy at all to come up with a robust system for accounting clicks.
Also - just because you own a particular brand of car stereo doesn't mean you can go out and steal it too.
I wish people would stop drawing such ridiculous analogies. You can't steal a copyrighted work by making a copy of it anymore than you can steal a person's soul by taking their picture.
I see what you mean, but I think there would be much outrage if Windows automatically disabled people's drivers (and therefore their hardware) once a certain number of crash reports were submitted by users.
There is no penalty for using unsigned drivers, other than the fact that you run the risk of them being unstable.
Starting with 64-bit Windows Vista you will not be able to run unsigned kernel-mode drivers at all. Also, signed drivers do not in any way guarantee stability.
Haven't read the article yet, but from reading your post it seems to me they're saying that a computer running "Yellow" or "Red" drivers cannot be sold as a "Windows-logo certified" computer.
"At O'Reilly, we've even had to send a cease-and-desist letter once, to a company that was publishing technical books with the picture of an animal on the cover."
Any animal? Even animals O'Reilly has never used in a book cover? My first reaction to this is that there's something very wrong about that. Trademark law has become a lot worse now that things like "trade dress" are considered trademarks. Makes me sick.
And now the eternal question: what the fuck would be wrong with simply enforcing the existing, objective, ubiquitous rating system? You know, like we do here in Britain?
It's a form of censorship and would violate the US constitution's first amendment.
For user programs, the Linux kernel's license states:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Should a similar exemption not apply to device drivers compiled as kernel modules?
Unlike many Slashdotters (as evidenced by previous reactions to the subject), I am very happy indeed that ICANN decided to reject the XXX domain, for the reasons given here:
In June 2005, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved the creation of an xxx top-level domain (TLD) for pornographic websites. This reverses their previous decision back in November 2000, when they decided against the creation of the xxx TLD. The Bush administration, responding to the recent decision by ICANN, is objecting to the creation of the new TLD. Meanwhile, many of the folks at Slashdot are objecting to Bush's objection to the xxx TLD.
While the Bush administration's decision is based more on opposition to pornography than on opposition to the xxx TLD, the arguments raised by Slashdot readers are rather problematic. The prevailing argument appears to be that the Bush administration should not interfere with the ICANN's decisions, and that an xxx TLD is a good idea because it could make it easier for parents and system-administrators to filter out pornographic content. The second part of this argument raises important free-speech concerns.
While the xxx domain is currently voluntary, could it eventually become mandatory? The government could require that pornographic content be hosted exclusively on xxx domains, the ICANN could change the rules for com, net and org domains to allow only non-pornographic content, and hosting providers could refuse to host pornographic websites not associated with an xxx domain. In short, there are many ways in which an xxx domain could be abused, all in the name of keeping smut away from impressionable eyes.
The xxx TLD could become a mechanism for the regulation of pornographic websites hosted on xxx domains. According to ZDNet, a "nonprofit organization called the International Foundation For Online Responsibility will be in charge of setting the rules for.xxx. It's intended to have a seven-person board of directors, including a child advocacy advocate, a free-expression aficionado and someone from the adult entertainment industry." What are the rules being set, and why do we need a "child advocacy advocate" to make decisions about adult-oriented domains? Would they require use of AVS (age-verification systems) by websites that use the xxx TLD?
According to an earlier statement by Stuart Lawley, whose company -- ICM Registry -- will administer the xxx TLD, "apart from child pornography, which is completely illegal, we're really not in the content-monitoring business". While this may seem reassuring, how will they decide what constitutes "child pornography"? Which country's definition of "child pornography" will they adopt? Shutting down child pornographers is the government's job, not the registrar's.
There's no good reason why pornographic content should be stuffed into the xxx TLD and isolated from the rest of the Internet's namespace. What is so terrible about pornography that it must be kept in its very own TLD? Who the hell knows. It's a silly decision grounded upon primitive moral codes.
The scientists have managed to reconstruct ancient genes from long extinct animals. Does this mean that we are one step closer to having pet dinosaurs?
"But in an industry that frequently makes $100M "oopsies", it may have some value."
If a bunch of studio executives with a lot of hollywood experience and a lot of money to lose can't figure out that these movies will be "oopsies", why should a non-intelligent computer program that extrapolates results based on a few broad parameters do any better?
Slashdot Mirror
If I gather correctly, the TPM takes care of providing decryption keys to the operating system once it can confirm the system is in a known state. What I still don't understand is how this "known state" together with the necessary decription keys are communicated to the TPM in the first place. Is there a central authority that takes care of this? If so, how would this affect Open Source operating systems?
Although the GPL has always covered modification, it has never covered modifications isolated from the act of redistribution. You were always able to make local modifications without being forced to disttribute those modifications to the public.
Although the GPL has always covered modification, it has never covered modifications when from the act of redistribution. You were always able to make local modifications without being forced to disttribute those modifications to the public.
Unless the source code is embedded in the executable itself, removing the source code from your servers does not constitute modification of the software. For that reason, such a feature is clearly contingent upon use rather than modification or redistribution.
While this may be reasonable in certain situations, there are cases where no distribution is involved and therefore no further copying ever takes place (the best example of this being a set of server-side scripts). In such cases the requirement to provide the source code through a special command is contingent upon use ("public use") rather than copying, which in my opinion is contrary to the spirit of the original GPL.
Does this requirement still exist in the current draft of the GPL v3?
I'm surprised by the stupid comments found on the page concerning China's Tokamak device. I'm eager for the day when scientists finally manage to create a working fusion reactor. Here's what asimov had to say back in 1975.
I've heard about similar cases, and I think it sucks. That's why the lawsuit against Google bothers me so much. If their current fraud-detection process does not catch "enough" fraud, imagine how ridiculously strict it will have to become to accomplish such a difficult feat.
I've wondered what would happen if I used Ad-words on my blog and a person in my family happened to click on an interesting ad. Given it's a low-volume blog I'm sure that Google would be able to correlate the IP addresses, so I imagine such a thing would result in the quick cancellation of my ad-words account. That's part of the reason I don't use ad-words on my blog.
But they are not misrepresenting the number of clicks. Not doing "enough" to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate clicks is not at all the same thing as commiting fraud.
It's easy to say that Google is not doing a good enough job identifying illegitimate clicks, but it's not very easy at all to come up with a robust system for accounting clicks.
The opportunity cost of fraudulent advertising is just massive.
In other words, lawyers are very good at getting milk out of rocks.
So that's not only $10 wasted, but $200 less in sales and $50 less in profit that you could've had if there was no fraud.
This is assuming a 100% conversion rate, which is simply ridiculous.
Also - just because you own a particular brand of car stereo doesn't mean you can go out and steal it too.
I wish people would stop drawing such ridiculous analogies. You can't steal a copyrighted work by making a copy of it anymore than you can steal a person's soul by taking their picture.
I see what you mean, but I think there would be much outrage if Windows automatically disabled people's drivers (and therefore their hardware) once a certain number of crash reports were submitted by users.
There is no penalty for using unsigned drivers, other than the fact that you run the risk of them being unstable.
Starting with 64-bit Windows Vista you will not be able to run unsigned kernel-mode drivers at all. Also, signed drivers do not in any way guarantee stability.
Haven't read the article yet, but from reading your post it seems to me they're saying that a computer running "Yellow" or "Red" drivers cannot be sold as a "Windows-logo certified" computer.
Microsoft is considering a massive extension of RSS.
For some strange reason, that statement sends shivers down my spine.
"At O'Reilly, we've even had to send a cease-and-desist letter once, to a company that was publishing technical books with the picture of an animal on the cover."
Any animal? Even animals O'Reilly has never used in a book cover? My first reaction to this is that there's something very wrong about that. Trademark law has become a lot worse now that things like "trade dress" are considered trademarks. Makes me sick.
It's a form of censorship and would violate the US constitution's first amendment.
Here is what Bruce Schneier thinks of Vista's UAC feature.
Should a similar exemption not apply to device drivers compiled as kernel modules?
He actually roasted an elephant to show how dangerous his competitor's AC current really was.
My post was meant as a joke, ya' silly sod. :P
The scientists have managed to reconstruct ancient genes from long extinct animals. Does this mean that we are one step closer to having pet dinosaurs?
Yay!
"In these people's cases, I think it's fair to say the game did it to them."
No. These people did it to themselves.
"But in an industry that frequently makes $100M "oopsies", it may have some value."
If a bunch of studio executives with a lot of hollywood experience and a lot of money to lose can't figure out that these movies will be "oopsies", why should a non-intelligent computer program that extrapolates results based on a few broad parameters do any better?