Regardless of its primary use, if mixed with certain other chemicals, packed into suitable containers, and combined with a means to initiate detonation, any reasonable person would describe ammonium nitrate used this way as being part of a bomb.
TLS/SSL also can be used a content protection system. Indeed, protecting data is its raison d'etre. You do NOT need any other technology to build a DRM system, other than SSL/TLS. TLS/SSL has broader uses than just DRM, but there are definitely deployed instances of it which exist just for that purpose.
The BBC scheme contains no extra technology other than common SSL/TLS infrastructure. It ties down iPlayer content such that it can only be played on certain devices. It theoretically allows for revocation, down to a device granularity, if a device or vendor is compromised.
I'm curious how such a TLS/SSL PKI system is not a DRM system.
Incorrect. Itanium's ISA makes much much greater demands of compilers than x86 does. Much of the reason for Itanium's failure is that Intel could not squeeze sufficient performance out of it because of this. Clear technical reason contributing to its failure.
FWIW BBC use TLS/SSL to lock down content to specific devices, using vendor-specific root CAs, for their "iPlayer" online TV. TLS/SSL definitely can be used to build DRM.
it's really interesting that, malnourishment in early childhood can affect not only that person but also their *offspring*. E.g. the average height of children borne during the war in NL, who went through the famine there at its end is lower than those borne immediately after. This average difference persists even to their children!
See my other reply - you may be wrong on lactose intolerance wrt cheese & yoghurt. Witness that many cultures outside Europe make great use of both (e.g. yoghurt is a staple throughout middle-east & India).
Isn't part of the point of cheeses and yoghurts the fact that bacteria have already done part of the job of "digesting" the lactose, turning it into lactic acid? Which the lactose intolerant can digest...
Perhaps societies with little lactose tolerance are unlikely to ever do enough dairy farming to develop yoghurt and cheese making much. However, still, your point that inability to digest is the *direct* cause seems wrong to me.
Now in the bad old days "arming" the bomb did not consist of throwing a switch but actually putting the uranium or plutonium into the bomb.
You mean putting the *final* piece of uranium into the bomb. The bomb already has a significantly larger, but sub-critical, mass of uranium in it... (we're talking early gun-type bombs obviously).
You are quite wrong on "requires precise operation... timing is critical". This may be true for all the higher-yield devices (i.e. Fat Man and up), however it's still generally untrue because the simplest nuclear device requires nothing more than:
a) A big lump of weapons grade uranium, just below critical mass b) Another lump of weapons grade uranium c) A tube d) A small amount of conventional explosive
Arrange them in such a way that the explosive propels the smaller lump into the larger and it's pretty certain to make a very large bang. Ok, it's at the very lowest end of A-bomb devastation, but still large enough to destroy Hiroshima. These type of A-bombs were extremely risky precisely because they were *so* prone to accidental detonation once armed (i.e. the smaller lump was loaded into the tube). Note the absence from this list of any kind of sophisticated timing devices: the only technological challenge to making these bombs is enriching the uranium...
So what if you want to run memcached on a multi-user machine?
It's slightly mad that software like this, which is designed without security, would use TCP per default, instead of local Unix sockets (access to which can be controlled with standard Unix filesystem permissions on the containing directory (careful about relying on permissions on the socket itself have any effect - not portable)). Indeed, it doesn't even seem to support Unix sockets (would be a trivial patch though).
You do. However you often can't buy the more useful, non-DRM version. Instead, you have to download pirated, non-DRM copies from the internet. The publishers then complain no one is buying their less useful versions cause of piracy.
When has copyright been changed to accommodate technology? "To each cow its calf, to each book its copy" dates to more than 1k years ago, when the "technology" for copying books meant a number of monks literally copying a book by hand.
I'm curious. Exactly how do you know what tattoos by modern artists, which presumably implies contemporary and recent, will look like way in the future? Do you think that perhaps the artists who made those old tattoos that now look like ugly green smears perhaps were once modern artists themselves?
I suspect your comment might be one of the most unintentionally insightful comments ever on why people get tattoos and why some eventually regret them.
Worse, the BBC implementation of Canvas will very likely be built on top of embedded Linux, while at the same time the BBC will do its best to restrict how Free Software can access its on-demand TV (iPlayer), e.g. by blocking all but the lower-res versions, or blocking access entirely. This in addition to the grand-parent's point about how the BBC will use public money to fund development of anti-public-interest DRM.
I have a number of BBC documents obtained via FOI requests where they talk about the need for "content protection" and/or "authentication", which they've been applying to iPlayer (they use "SWF verification" with Flash, and - it seems - SSL/TLS authentication for their HTML video iPlayer). See the BBC tagged articles on my blog for the documents and some comment.
The problem is that the BBC will use public money to develop DRM, and the BBC has the clout to ensure it gets deployed. Management in the BBC at the moment are very much sold on the idea of "content protection".
Polygraphs don't measure anything. They just dress up interrogation with quack-science and so provide a cover for interrogators to dress up their personal, subjective judgement about the truthfulness of the subject as an independent, technological judgement (intentionally or not).
They claim it's scientific and effective. However, the *ONLY* semi-reliable pronouncements you can make from a polygraph test (or any other lie-"detector" test, such as fMRI based) are those directly rooted in the statements made by the subject. Even there, we know that humans have an amazing capacity to say self-incriminating but FALSE things. Any other pronouncement a polygraph "auditor" makes is a complete **fraud**.
Polygraph "professionals" claim polygraphs have any power beyond what I've just stated are either unquestioning enough to not have looked past what they've been told in their training, or are self-delusional about the fact that they've invested their career in quackery, or else they're plain lying.
You're being sarcastic right? Using FMRIs for specific lie-detection is just as useless.
The only point of polygraphs is that they're a *psychological* interrogation tool, used to induce people into confessing to things by making them think the interrogator actually knows they told a lie. All that matters is that the interrogee believes the test has some effect - the actual technology used is irrelevant.
No known technology has been proven to have any significant efficacy at detecting lies under scientific conditions. Which is why none of their results are directly admissible in court as evidence (a confession obtained through such a tool would be of course).
Do you realise that Flash != codec? Do you realise that any video in a Flash applet very likely will be encoded in H.263+, H.264 or VP6? Are you aware that at least two of these require MPEG-LA royalties to decode? Do you realise that Flash does not support Theora? Hence, despite your deep dislike of MPEG-LA, if you're advocating Flash then you are more or less or promoting MPEG-LA royalty bearing technology. The only modern web-video technology which does not require MPEG-LA royalties is HTML5 video with Theora (potentially Googles' VP8 might be added to this list in future).
With all due respect, you appear to have a less than solid grasp of the facts of the matter, which renders your conclusions quite suspect.
Out of curiosity, do you have a proprietary browser plugin from Adobe installed?/me testing the theory that the fiercest opponents of H.264 HTML5 video tend also to quite happily be using proprietary browser plugins to browse H.263+/H.264 video on Youtube. FWIW, I don't have it installed, and HTLM5 video + H.264 at least lets me browse/watch Youtube easily with free software. Some parts of it may still have patent problems, but then so does a lot of other free software (and yes, it sucks that video seems to be a patent minefield).
Slashdot Mirror
You have clearly failed to read my comment in its entirety and/or you're just arguing for the sake of it. :)
Regardless of its primary use, if mixed with certain other chemicals, packed into suitable containers, and combined with a means to initiate detonation, any reasonable person would describe ammonium nitrate used this way as being part of a bomb.
TLS/SSL also can be used a content protection system. Indeed, protecting data is its raison d'etre. You do NOT need any other technology to build a DRM system, other than SSL/TLS. TLS/SSL has broader uses than just DRM, but there are definitely deployed instances of it which exist just for that purpose.
The BBC scheme contains no extra technology other than common SSL/TLS infrastructure. It ties down iPlayer content such that it can only be played on certain devices. It theoretically allows for revocation, down to a device granularity, if a device or vendor is compromised.
I'm curious how such a TLS/SSL PKI system is not a DRM system.
Incorrect. Itanium's ISA makes much much greater demands of compilers than x86 does. Much of the reason for Itanium's failure is that Intel could not squeeze sufficient performance out of it because of this. Clear technical reason contributing to its failure.
FWIW BBC use TLS/SSL to lock down content to specific devices, using vendor-specific root CAs, for their "iPlayer" online TV. TLS/SSL definitely can be used to build DRM.
That answer is correct if your parent meant free as in beer, but incorrect if they meant free as in freedom.
it's really interesting that, malnourishment in early childhood can affect not only that person but also their *offspring*. E.g. the average height of children borne during the war in NL, who went through the famine there at its end is lower than those borne immediately after. This average difference persists even to their children!
I wish I had mod-points. Thanks for this post.
See my other reply - you may be wrong on lactose intolerance wrt cheese & yoghurt. Witness that many cultures outside Europe make great use of both (e.g. yoghurt is a staple throughout middle-east & India).
Isn't part of the point of cheeses and yoghurts the fact that bacteria have already done part of the job of "digesting" the lactose, turning it into lactic acid? Which the lactose intolerant can digest...
Perhaps societies with little lactose tolerance are unlikely to ever do enough dairy farming to develop yoghurt and cheese making much. However, still, your point that inability to digest is the *direct* cause seems wrong to me.
Now in the bad old days "arming" the bomb did not consist of throwing a switch but actually putting the uranium or plutonium into the bomb.
You mean putting the *final* piece of uranium into the bomb. The bomb already has a significantly larger, but sub-critical, mass of uranium in it... (we're talking early gun-type bombs obviously).
You are quite wrong on "requires precise operation... timing is critical". This may be true for all the higher-yield devices (i.e. Fat Man and up), however it's still generally untrue because the simplest nuclear device requires nothing more than:
a) A big lump of weapons grade uranium, just below critical mass
b) Another lump of weapons grade uranium
c) A tube
d) A small amount of conventional explosive
Arrange them in such a way that the explosive propels the smaller lump into the larger and it's pretty certain to make a very large bang. Ok, it's at the very lowest end of A-bomb devastation, but still large enough to destroy Hiroshima. These type of A-bombs were extremely risky precisely because they were *so* prone to accidental detonation once armed (i.e. the smaller lump was loaded into the tube). Note the absence from this list of any kind of sophisticated timing devices: the only technological challenge to making these bombs is enriching the uranium...
So what if you want to run memcached on a multi-user machine?
It's slightly mad that software like this, which is designed without security, would use TCP per default, instead of local Unix sockets (access to which can be controlled with standard Unix filesystem permissions on the containing directory (careful about relying on permissions on the socket itself have any effect - not portable)). Indeed, it doesn't even seem to support Unix sockets (would be a trivial patch though).
Ah, ok. Extended to new technologies. Yes, agreed.
You do. However you often can't buy the more useful, non-DRM version. Instead, you have to download pirated, non-DRM copies from the internet. The publishers then complain no one is buying their less useful versions cause of piracy.
Shakespeare copied and drew heavy inspiration from around him and from classical material, just like any one today.
When has copyright been changed to accommodate technology? "To each cow its calf, to each book its copy" dates to more than 1k years ago, when the "technology" for copying books meant a number of monks literally copying a book by hand.
I'm curious. Exactly how do you know what tattoos by modern artists, which presumably implies contemporary and recent, will look like way in the future? Do you think that perhaps the artists who made those old tattoos that now look like ugly green smears perhaps were once modern artists themselves?
I suspect your comment might be one of the most unintentionally insightful comments ever on why people get tattoos and why some eventually regret them.
Worse, the BBC implementation of Canvas will very likely be built on top of embedded Linux, while at the same time the BBC will do its best to restrict how Free Software can access its on-demand TV (iPlayer), e.g. by blocking all but the lower-res versions, or blocking access entirely. This in addition to the grand-parent's point about how the BBC will use public money to fund development of anti-public-interest DRM.
I have a number of BBC documents obtained via FOI requests where they talk about the need for "content protection" and/or "authentication", which they've been applying to iPlayer (they use "SWF verification" with Flash, and - it seems - SSL/TLS authentication for their HTML video iPlayer). See the BBC tagged articles on my blog for the documents and some comment.
The problem is that the BBC will use public money to develop DRM, and the BBC has the clout to ensure it gets deployed. Management in the BBC at the moment are very much sold on the idea of "content protection".
Polygraphs don't measure anything. They just dress up interrogation with quack-science and so provide a cover for interrogators to dress up their personal, subjective judgement about the truthfulness of the subject as an independent, technological judgement (intentionally or not).
They claim it's scientific and effective. However, the *ONLY* semi-reliable pronouncements you can make from a polygraph test (or any other lie-"detector" test, such as fMRI based) are those directly rooted in the statements made by the subject. Even there, we know that humans have an amazing capacity to say self-incriminating but FALSE things. Any other pronouncement a polygraph "auditor" makes is a complete **fraud**.
Polygraph "professionals" claim polygraphs have any power beyond what I've just stated are either unquestioning enough to not have looked past what they've been told in their training, or are self-delusional about the fact that they've invested their career in quackery, or else they're plain lying.
You're being sarcastic right? Using FMRIs for specific lie-detection is just as useless.
The only point of polygraphs is that they're a *psychological* interrogation tool, used to induce people into confessing to things by making them think the interrogator actually knows they told a lie. All that matters is that the interrogee believes the test has some effect - the actual technology used is irrelevant.
No known technology has been proven to have any significant efficacy at detecting lies under scientific conditions. Which is why none of their results are directly admissible in court as evidence (a confession obtained through such a tool would be of course).
Do you realise that Flash != codec? Do you realise that any video in a Flash applet very likely will be encoded in H.263+, H.264 or VP6? Are you aware that at least two of these require MPEG-LA royalties to decode? Do you realise that Flash does not support Theora? Hence, despite your deep dislike of MPEG-LA, if you're advocating Flash then you are more or less or promoting MPEG-LA royalty bearing technology. The only modern web-video technology which does not require MPEG-LA royalties is HTML5 video with Theora (potentially Googles' VP8 might be added to this list in future).
With all due respect, you appear to have a less than solid grasp of the facts of the matter, which renders your conclusions quite suspect.
Out of curiosity, do you have a proprietary browser plugin from Adobe installed? /me testing the theory that the fiercest opponents of H.264 HTML5 video tend also to quite happily be using proprietary browser plugins to browse H.263+/H.264 video on Youtube. FWIW, I don't have it installed, and HTLM5 video + H.264 at least lets me browse/watch Youtube easily with free software. Some parts of it may still have patent problems, but then so does a lot of other free software (and yes, it sucks that video seems to be a patent minefield).