We could put all the content on one page and that would do a great job of dragging the server down as everyone pulls everything. More than one page takes some pressure of the server.
Now, *that* is an insult.
Serving 12 pages with lots of ads is supposed to be less pressure than serving 1 modestly larger page?
I tried to look into linux a bit, but didnt/dont really have the time. At this point, if its not building on something I already know, there are other things I need to be doing. One thing I was disappointed with was not being able to use it on an old machine. I mean, when the base install is over 1gb, that kind of excludes using an old 486 w/ 250mb hd.
Many of the latest distros are certainly bloated, no argument about that. Then again, you wouldn't expect to be able to install this year's or even last year's version of Windows on a '486.
That '486 should work just fine with some of the special purpose distros floating around - like floppyfw or TSL.
If 100 Mbits really costs $1,000,000 a day when used to its ultimate, then their pricing should reflects that at the same time it reflect the lower cost of barely using the line at all.
Then the ISPs have to go to bandwith usage pricing (N$ per GB traffic). It seems like every time an ISP thinks about going down that road, you get a flame-fest terrible.
Note - and this may be part of your confusion - Stow is not designed to be a replacement "package-management" software in the style of rpm or apt-get: Stow simply aids in managing software that you have compiled yourself, and it does this extremely well. But that's all it does:)
That is an important clarification. Stow lacks a lot that you would want in a package manager - like configuration file handling and dependency checking.
But as a tool to keep the stuff in/usr/local sorted for software where you don't want or need to write a full blown rpm or deb, it seems great.
My point is, MS now takes steps in Win2000/XP and Office 2000/XP to make sure these things wont happen in the future. The thing I was wondering is why Linux seems to be so far behind the curve, as far as version control goes.
What, exactly, do you find lacking in RPM or DEB?
Can you ask the Windows box questions like "which software package does this file come from"?
Can a Windows software package check that the DLLs required by the package are already installed on the computer?
Can you find which config files (registry keys) that belong to a particular software package?
Can a software package check for old config files (registry keys), and do the appropriate thing (i.e., overwrite with new values or leave old)?
That's no problem at all on a proper Linux distribution, but is often a world of hurt in Windows land.
Just as an outsider, I would say open source sufferes from lack of direction and standards, comparatively speaking.
That is certainly a valid concern. It is unfortunately difficult to do something about it uless the entire community is willing to let one company or organisation set standards. With Linux you have the freedom to do whatever you like, but that does come at the cost of lack of standards.
Linus only steps in (I believe) on kernel related issues,
Linus is only interested in the kernel, and he doesn't really have the power to mandate stuff like file system standards, package formats and configuration file formats.
and everything else is getting sorted out (sort of) by the various distros.
The LSB does provide a sort of minimal base.
But once a certain method achieves the 'thats the way its done' status, it seems to stagnate.
For some things, yes. For others, not at all. SysV init, for example, works ok for most of us so there isn't really much pressure to replace it with something else. But legacy support is, imho, less of a problem in the Linux world than in Windows (how long did it take MS to ditch MS-DOS?). Stuff that is 'good enough' stagnates unless some programmers come up with a better solution or someone needs a better solution and pay open source developers to write it.
Anyway, the source is there so feel free to fix if there is something you think is missing.;-)
Why is it always the consumers fault when a company underprices its services? If the service costs $1e+06 a month, then CHARGE THAT.
Because then they wouldn't be able to sell it.
It is a numbers game. The cell phone companies don't scale their networks so that all their subscribers can call at the same time, they just make sure that there is sufficient bandwidth for normal usage peak hours.
Bandwidth isn't cheap, and before KNapsterZaa most ISP subscribers used their lines for just a few percentages of the day.
So, what do you want - Dirt expensive service with guaranteed bandwidth or cheap service where you get the bandwidth you expect most of the time?
I would have some security concerns though since it makes it a lot easier for those of malicious intent to intercept the signal as its basically being broadcast in the open.
Transmitting in the visual spectrum doesn't really make it more insecure than existing wireless networks. Except that you might be able to spot transmitters using your eyeball instead of Netstumbler.
And like 802.11, they'll probably snafu the first crypto implementation anyway.:-/
The thing wouldn't be completely reliable, but I'd bet that when the system goes down the weather would be so bad that not many people would be at work anyways.
They would be at home trying to surf the 'net using their spiffy new LightDSL Internet connection.
As for last mile technologies -- You're missing the point completely. Peering between ISPs has very little to do with last-mile links, unless the ISPs are within a few miles of each other.
I was thinking about the general difference between the old telcos and new entrants in the ISP market. The old telcos also own most of the last-mile copper in the ground, so wireless is an alternative for circumventing that.
In many countries you also have the Government regulating the rollout of wireless gear, because the regulatory treatment which a wireless link receives is exactly the same as the regulatory treatment a wired link receives -- And if you can't dig-up the road to install fibre without a Government license, then you damn-well can't stick up a pair of antennae to achieve the same result wirelessly either.
Can you give me examples of this? In the US, you have the FCC regulating frequency allocation, allowed emitted power. You have similar structures in EU, Japan, etc. As long as you use the bands reserved for unlicensed use (mainly 2.4GHz - i.e. 802.11/b/g), there are no restrictions on setting up a wireless link as long as you stay within allowed emitted power. Also, getting a license for using, say, 3.5GHz equipment for backbone links isn't impossible where I live.
It's not the fibre which matters to the lawmakers, it's the fact that you've built a link which the Govt doesn't know about and can't wiretap.
I'd love to get some background material on this. I happen to run a wireless ISP in an EU country, and I have yet to see the black helicopters arrive because the covernment can't tap my links.
The situation in Australia is that A is "Telstra", and B and C are "everyone else".
The monopoly sitation with respect to installed telecommunications infrastructure distorts the way the peering arrangements you have described occur. The Australian situation is similar to what you would have had in the US if AT&T were never broken up.
The Australian situation is no different from the situation in most countries where you had an old telecom monopoly - like in most of Europe. I'm wondering whether Open Spectrum and small ISPs deploying wireless technology both for last-mile and backbone links would accelerate the dismantling of the old monopolies.
Re:VGA text mode is a waste of circuitry
on
BIOS' Days Are Numbered
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Speaking as someone who has designed a graphics accelerator chip, I can say that having to include a VGA controller is a total waste of design effort and circuit area. It's useful ONLY for boot-up on PC's, and then as soon as a real OS comes up, it's turned off and forgotten about. It's a pointless anoyance, and I'll be elated to see it go away.
Legacy is a bitch, isn't it?:)
Seriously, unless there is a sane and universally accepted standard out there that can replace VGA/VESA it has to stay. Too much use it for it to be removed - like the BIOS, boot-loaders, MS-DOS and Linux in text mode. I do not want to wait for the OS to load the correct video driver before the machine is able to display something. There are way too many SNAFUs that can happen before a video driver can be loaded, and if that happens the PC is toast unless the BIOS has proper support for a serial console or boot control over the network.
Does the VGA requirement hold back the development of new graphics chips? I would assume that it is a well understood problem that can be implemented in a small separate space and doesn't impact the design of the rest of the chip. If that is an incorrect assumption, please explain.
Yes, it is a legacy annoyance. Yes, it would be great if we could replace it with something better.
Though I realise you are being sarcastic, there is obviously some misunderstanding of how this works as evidenced by other posts in this thread.
Thanks for the clarification.
A few questions: Will the EFI firmware always be capable of (re)configuring the hardware and booting the PC if the "non-volatile" (with the quality of current IDE drives, that's a misnomer) storage area is toasted? I still have nightmares about old computers that refused to load the BIOS configuration utility if the service/BIOS partition on the HD went south, and I don't want to have the same problems with EFI.
Is EFI in any way related to CHRP/PReP OpenFirmware?
How does EFI handle 3rd party BIOS/firmware on add-in cards? Does EFI define a new standard/format for firmware on add-in cards?
If EFI defines a new firmware module interface, is the firmware on add-in cards processor neutral? That is - can the EFI firmware on an ethernet card be used any computer with any processor as long as the machine supports EFI?
The legal precedent for software End User License Agreements is pretty shaky, primarily resting on a single case at a lower court level (district?) that rather insanely decided that copying a program into memory to run was an infringing copy and as such required a license.
Mai vs Peak sometime around 1991-1993. I'm unfortunately unable to find the full judgement on the 'net at the moment. The case went, AFAIR, as far as the 9th circuit court of appeals.
Without a license, you cannot use copyrighted material. If you use copyrighted material, without a license, you are in violation of that copyright. The only matters before the court would be "did you use the software" and "are you licensed to do so".
I hear people claiming this all the time, with the only supporting argument being: "all the software companies say so, so it has to be in the law somewhere".
I challenge you to quote chapter and verse of the relevant sections of EU or US copyright law that supports your claim.
(The GPL is probably valid even if ordinary EULAs are invalid. The GPL give you additional rights that you would not ordinarily have, and it is optional.)
Holy crap! Thanks to the law, if I do something that's against the law, I could get in trouble! Holy crap!
By the devine digested foodstuff! If that law makes no sense, is it wrong of us to say that it is bad?
Seeing as how actually copying the CD's is illegal anyway, this is not a problem.
Huh? No, it isn't. Making copies might be legal or illegal. Redistributing copies is in most cases illegal.
Unscrupulous people want to copy CD's rather than paying for them. This is against the law
True so far.
Oh, you say, but this is infringing on my fair use rights! Guess what? You have no fair use rights. None.
This is where we disagree.
First of all, you should read about the legislative history of "fair use". The current fair use portion of US copyright law was defined and carved out by the courts because they were presented with cases where copyright law and other rights (such as the right to free speech, critisism, science, etc) collided, and they had to make a compromise. This was later codified as a set of "fair use" rules (the four step test) in the 1976 revision of the copyright law.
Some highlights to help your googling: 1841: Folsom v. Marsh 1973: Williams and Wilkins Co. v. United States 1976: Fair use and first sale codified in US copyright law.
If you make certain uses of a work, those uses are defined by the law as being non-infringing. But that's an exception, not a right.
Actually, without fair use and other safety valves, copyright law would be unconstitutional. Even the copyright clause itself limit the scope of copyright law:
"The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
If the copyright holder wants to use technological means to prevent you from exercising that exception, they're free to do so. And the law says you have to respect their wishes on that matter.
The law, prior to the DMCA, said nothing of the sort. And in the analog world, courts have ruled against copyright holders that have unfairly tried to limit other peoples' legal use of their creations.
And I violently reject the notion that private interests should be free to rewrite copyright law to suit their own business plans - that is not, and never was, the purpose of copyright law.
But here's the deal. The RIAA only cares about preventing digital copying. They only care if you try to make a digital copy of a CD, or to generate digital MP3's from that CD
Ah, young Skywalker. Let me tell you about the olde times and "Home Taping Kills Music". In the ancient times of the cassette recorder, the RIAA entered a similar panic mode to prevent analog copying. The difference is that RIAA was not powerful enough then to buy laws and dictate technology. Today is seems like the movie/music industry is.
Your arguments about chilling effects add up to a big fat zero. Sorry.
Crypto research and computer security? The right to preserve something I've bought? Those "fair use" rights and all the explicit exemptions in copyright law? The media industry controlling the tech industry? The DMCA giving the creator of a protected media format patent-like monopoly protection?
A few large economic interests are using copyright law to shape the digital world in their own picture, ignoring lots of other rights that are equally important.
Isn't that a little dangerous for military secrecy? I mean, anyone can now take a wireless transmitter and modify it to detect military radar.
Get yourself a spectrum analyzer instead.
If you have access to the required tools, it has always been easy to discover RF transmission. Many of these tools are now becoming consumer devices. When software radio matures, a simple software upgrade would suffice to discover and recognize radar and other RF transmissions.
What I'm more worried about is that US military radar evidently is so sensitive and fragile that even a low powered signal in the 5GHz range can knock it out - I honestly thought their stuff was designed to handle military grade ECM but it sounds like they can't even handle consumer grade wifi equipment.
The sad truth is that they can't win the war against piracy. Thus you have a war with only collateral damage.
How much better it would be if people could stop digging trenches and start talking together to find a new balance in copyright law that works for all parties.
I'm glad to see IBM directly address TCPA issues. Their explaination of how TCPA works is better than what I had for the AMI/Slashdot interview.
What? You mean forgetting to explain what endorsement keys can be used for is the same as explaining TCPA?
Thanks for not bothering to answer my question in that interview, btw. Probably won't get an answer now, either.
IBM is perhaps honest when they claim that TCPA was not primarily designed for DRM. However, making it sound like TCPA can not be used as the foundation for DRM systems is either ivory tower wishful thinking or a bald faced lie.
I'm also happy to see a TCPA/TPM driver for Linux (was wondering when sopmebody would get around to that).
It's not like TCPA doesn't have any good features. But then again, I have not heard about one single good feature that can not be solved in an other way. (BIOS boot passwords, PGP/GPG, smartcards/USB key dongles, hardware RNGs, virtual machines and runtime sandboxes).
But if you really want us to believe that this thing is not ment for DRM, do the following changes:
1) Lose the "endorsement keys" 2) Design the hardware module so that I can load any private key of my own choice in it. 3) Provide a way for the machine owner to extract the keys from the module (say, a password protected serial connection, so that it is impossible without physical access to the machine and knowledge of a password)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, after I digest your 2nd insult.
What insult? He merely asked you a question.
We could put all the content on one page and that would do a great job of dragging the server down as everyone pulls everything. More than one page takes some pressure of the server.
Now, *that* is an insult.
Serving 12 pages with lots of ads is supposed to be less pressure than serving 1 modestly larger page?
haha! thanks, but Im sticking with Windows
Fair enough, if it works for you.
I tried to look into linux a bit, but didnt/dont really have the time. At this point, if its not building on something I already know, there are other things I need to be doing. One thing I was disappointed with was not being able to use it on an old machine. I mean, when the base install is over 1gb, that kind of excludes using an old 486 w/ 250mb hd.
Many of the latest distros are certainly bloated, no argument about that. Then again, you wouldn't expect to be able to install this year's or even last year's version of Windows on a '486.
That '486 should work just fine with some of the special purpose distros floating around - like floppyfw or TSL.
If 100 Mbits really costs $1,000,000 a day when used to its ultimate, then their pricing should reflects that at the same time it reflect the lower cost of barely using the line at all.
Then the ISPs have to go to bandwith usage pricing (N$ per GB traffic). It seems like every time an ISP thinks about going down that road, you get a flame-fest terrible.
Note - and this may be part of your confusion - Stow is not designed to be a replacement "package-management" software in the style of rpm or apt-get: Stow simply aids in managing software that you have compiled yourself, and it does this extremely well. But that's all it does :)
/usr/local sorted for software where you don't want or need to write a full blown rpm or deb, it seems great.
That is an important clarification. Stow lacks a lot that you would want in a package manager - like configuration file handling and dependency checking.
But as a tool to keep the stuff in
My point is, MS now takes steps in Win2000/XP and Office 2000/XP to make sure these things wont happen in the future. The thing I was wondering is why Linux seems to be so far behind the curve, as far as version control goes.
;-)
What, exactly, do you find lacking in RPM or DEB?
Can you ask the Windows box questions like "which software package does this file come from"?
Can a Windows software package check that the DLLs required by the package are already installed on the computer?
Can you find which config files (registry keys) that belong to a particular software package?
Can a software package check for old config files (registry keys), and do the appropriate thing (i.e., overwrite with new values or leave old)?
That's no problem at all on a proper Linux distribution, but is often a world of hurt in Windows land.
Just as an outsider, I would say open source sufferes from lack of direction and standards, comparatively speaking.
That is certainly a valid concern. It is unfortunately difficult to do something about it uless the entire community is willing to let one company or organisation set standards. With Linux you have the freedom to do whatever you like, but that does come at the cost of lack of standards.
Linus only steps in (I believe) on kernel related issues,
Linus is only interested in the kernel, and he doesn't really have the power to mandate stuff like file system standards, package formats and configuration file formats.
and everything else is getting sorted out (sort of) by the various distros.
The LSB does provide a sort of minimal base.
But once a certain method achieves the 'thats the way its done' status, it seems to stagnate.
For some things, yes. For others, not at all. SysV init, for example, works ok for most of us so there isn't really much pressure to replace it with something else. But legacy support is, imho, less of a problem in the Linux world than in Windows (how long did it take MS to ditch MS-DOS?). Stuff that is 'good enough' stagnates unless some programmers come up with a better solution or someone needs a better solution and pay open source developers to write it.
Anyway, the source is there so feel free to fix if there is something you think is missing.
Why is it always the consumers fault when a company underprices its services? If the service costs $1e+06 a month, then CHARGE THAT.
Because then they wouldn't be able to sell it.
It is a numbers game. The cell phone companies don't scale their networks so that all their subscribers can call at the same time, they just make sure that there is sufficient bandwidth for normal usage peak hours.
Bandwidth isn't cheap, and before KNapsterZaa most ISP subscribers used their lines for just a few percentages of the day.
So, what do you want - Dirt expensive service with guaranteed bandwidth or cheap service where you get the bandwidth you expect most of the time?
I would have some security concerns though since it makes it a lot easier for those of malicious intent to intercept the signal as its basically being broadcast in the open.
:-/
Transmitting in the visual spectrum doesn't really make it more insecure than existing wireless networks. Except that you might be able to spot transmitters using your eyeball instead of Netstumbler.
And like 802.11, they'll probably snafu the first crypto implementation anyway.
The thing wouldn't be completely reliable, but I'd bet that when the system goes down the weather would be so bad that not many people would be at work anyways.
They would be at home trying to surf the 'net using their spiffy new LightDSL Internet connection.
As for last mile technologies -- You're missing the point completely. Peering between ISPs has very little to do with last-mile links, unless the ISPs are within a few miles of each other.
I was thinking about the general difference between the old telcos and new entrants in the ISP market. The old telcos also own most of the last-mile copper in the ground, so wireless is an alternative for circumventing that.
In many countries you also have the Government regulating the rollout of wireless gear, because the regulatory treatment which a wireless link receives is exactly the same as the regulatory treatment a wired link receives -- And if you can't dig-up the road to install fibre without a Government license, then you damn-well can't stick up a pair of antennae to achieve the same result wirelessly either.
Can you give me examples of this? In the US, you have the FCC regulating frequency allocation, allowed emitted power. You have similar structures in EU, Japan, etc. As long as you use the bands reserved for unlicensed use (mainly 2.4GHz - i.e. 802.11/b/g), there are no restrictions on setting up a wireless link as long as you stay within allowed emitted power. Also, getting a license for using, say, 3.5GHz equipment for backbone links isn't impossible where I live.
It's not the fibre which matters to the lawmakers, it's the fact that you've built a link which the Govt doesn't know about and can't wiretap.
I'd love to get some background material on this. I happen to run a wireless ISP in an EU country, and I have yet to see the black helicopters arrive because the covernment can't tap my links.
The situation in Australia is that A is "Telstra", and B and C are "everyone else".
The monopoly sitation with respect to installed telecommunications infrastructure distorts the way the peering arrangements you have described occur. The Australian situation is similar to what you would have had in the US if AT&T were never broken up.
The Australian situation is no different from the situation in most countries where you had an old telecom monopoly - like in most of Europe. I'm wondering whether Open Spectrum and small ISPs deploying wireless technology both for last-mile and backbone links would accelerate the dismantling of the old monopolies.
Speaking as someone who has designed a graphics accelerator chip, I can say that having to include a VGA controller is a total waste of design effort and circuit area. It's useful ONLY for boot-up on PC's, and then as soon as a real OS comes up, it's turned off and forgotten about. It's a pointless anoyance, and I'll be elated to see it go away.
:)
Legacy is a bitch, isn't it?
Seriously, unless there is a sane and universally accepted standard out there that can replace VGA/VESA it has to stay. Too much use it for it to be removed - like the BIOS, boot-loaders, MS-DOS and Linux in text mode. I do not want to wait for the OS to load the correct video driver before the machine is able to display something. There are way too many SNAFUs that can happen before a video driver can be loaded, and if that happens the PC is toast unless the BIOS has proper support for a serial console or boot control over the network.
Does the VGA requirement hold back the development of new graphics chips? I would assume that it is a well understood problem that can be implemented in a small separate space and doesn't impact the design of the rest of the chip. If that is an incorrect assumption, please explain.
Yes, it is a legacy annoyance. Yes, it would be great if we could replace it with something better.
Though I realise you are being sarcastic, there is obviously some misunderstanding of how this works as evidenced by other posts in this thread.
Thanks for the clarification.
A few questions:
Will the EFI firmware always be capable of (re)configuring the hardware and booting the PC if the "non-volatile" (with the quality of current IDE drives, that's a misnomer) storage area is toasted? I still have nightmares about old computers that refused to load the BIOS configuration utility if the service/BIOS partition on the HD went south, and I don't want to have the same problems with EFI.
Is EFI in any way related to CHRP/PReP OpenFirmware?
How does EFI handle 3rd party BIOS/firmware on add-in cards? Does EFI define a new standard/format for firmware on add-in cards?
If EFI defines a new firmware module interface, is the firmware on add-in cards processor neutral? That is - can the EFI firmware on an ethernet card be used any computer with any processor as long as the machine supports EFI?
Are EFI and PXE related?
The legal precedent for software End User License Agreements is pretty shaky, primarily resting on a single case at a lower court level (district?) that rather insanely decided that copying a program into memory to run was an infringing copy and as such required a license.
Mai vs Peak sometime around 1991-1993. I'm unfortunately unable to find the full judgement on the 'net at the moment. The case went, AFAIR, as far as the 9th circuit court of appeals.
Without a license, you cannot use copyrighted material. If you use copyrighted material, without a license, you are in violation of that copyright. The only matters before the court would be "did you use the software" and "are you licensed to do so".
I hear people claiming this all the time, with the only supporting argument being: "all the software companies say so, so it has to be in the law somewhere".
I challenge you to quote chapter and verse of the relevant sections of EU or US copyright law that supports your claim.
(The GPL is probably valid even if ordinary EULAs are invalid. The GPL give you additional rights that you would not ordinarily have, and it is optional.)
I mean what authority will the EU have over MS if MS decideds to pull out of Europe?
And, umm, why would they do that? A simple analysis would show that pulling out of the EU market would cost them more than a company break up.
The reason the issue was escalated to the Verio level was because Thing.net didn't have any sort of AUP against this kind of illegal activity.
If it was clearly illegal, why didn't Dow go to a judge and ask for an injunction against the people that actually put the thing on the net?
One simple question for you - what should the liability for contribution be for intermediaries providing the communication channels?
Holy crap! Thanks to the law, if I do something that's against the law, I could get in trouble! Holy crap!
By the devine digested foodstuff! If that law makes no sense, is it wrong of us to say that it is bad?
Seeing as how actually copying the CD's is illegal anyway, this is not a problem.
Huh? No, it isn't. Making copies might be legal or illegal. Redistributing copies is in most cases illegal.
Unscrupulous people want to copy CD's rather than paying for them. This is against the law
True so far.
Oh, you say, but this is infringing on my fair use rights! Guess what? You have no fair use rights. None.
This is where we disagree.
First of all, you should read about the legislative history of "fair use". The current fair use portion of US copyright law was defined and carved out by the courts because they were presented with cases where copyright law and other rights (such as the right to free speech, critisism, science, etc) collided, and they had to make a compromise. This was later codified as a set of "fair use" rules (the four step test) in the 1976 revision of the copyright law.
Some highlights to help your googling:
1841: Folsom v. Marsh
1973: Williams and Wilkins Co. v. United States
1976: Fair use and first sale codified in US copyright law.
If you make certain uses of a work, those uses are defined by the law as being non-infringing. But that's an exception, not a right.
Actually, without fair use and other safety valves, copyright law would be unconstitutional. Even the copyright clause itself limit the scope of copyright law:
"The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
If the copyright holder wants to use technological means to prevent you from exercising that exception, they're free to do so. And the law says you have to respect their wishes on that matter.
The law, prior to the DMCA, said nothing of the sort. And in the analog world, courts have ruled against copyright holders that have unfairly tried to limit other peoples' legal use of their creations.
And I violently reject the notion that private interests should be free to rewrite copyright law to suit their own business plans - that is not, and never was, the purpose of copyright law.
But here's the deal. The RIAA only cares about preventing digital copying. They only care if you try to make a digital copy of a CD, or to generate digital MP3's from that CD
Ah, young Skywalker. Let me tell you about the olde times and "Home Taping Kills Music". In the ancient times of the cassette recorder, the RIAA entered a similar panic mode to prevent analog copying. The difference is that RIAA was not powerful enough then to buy laws and dictate technology. Today is seems like the movie/music industry is.
Your arguments about chilling effects add up to a big fat zero. Sorry.
Crypto research and computer security? The right to preserve something I've bought? Those "fair use" rights and all the explicit exemptions in copyright law? The media industry controlling the tech industry? The DMCA giving the creator of a protected media format patent-like monopoly protection?
A few large economic interests are using copyright law to shape the digital world in their own picture, ignoring lots of other rights that are equally important.
It's all a question of power.
Good point.
Isn't that a little dangerous for military secrecy? I mean, anyone can now take a wireless transmitter and modify it to detect military radar.
Get yourself a spectrum analyzer instead.
If you have access to the required tools, it has always been easy to discover RF transmission. Many of these tools are now becoming consumer devices. When software radio matures, a simple software upgrade would suffice to discover and recognize radar and other RF transmissions.
What I'm more worried about is that US military radar evidently is so sensitive and fragile that even a low powered signal in the 5GHz range can knock it out - I honestly thought their stuff was designed to handle military grade ECM but it sounds like they can't even handle consumer grade wifi equipment.
The sad truth is that they can't win the war against piracy. Thus you have a war with only collateral damage.
How much better it would be if people could stop digging trenches and start talking together to find a new balance in copyright law that works for all parties.
Region-free DVD players are perfectly legal anywhere, so long as the person distributing them region-free hasn't signed the CSS license.
Once a significant percentage of the EU countries have implemented the EUCD, I expect the movie barons to try to shut down region free players.
Oh, and don't try to import DVD movies from outside EU after the EUCD goes operative. Article 4.2, community exhaustion.
If the dmca is appealed then the RIAA will bust you under the UUCD( Europe's dmca)
EUCD, also known as Infosoc or 2001/29/EC.
Dont believe me? Look at Jon Johnson. Through world internation commerce espionage laws he was tried by an American law.
I assume you're talking about Mr. Johansen? If so, he was tried by Norwegian law. Pre-EUCD Norwegian law.
Someone else knows about example.com and its purpose! ..but can you name the number of the RFC without the help of Google? :)
Can anyone give a good reason for needing files larger than 2gb?
.iso images. :)
DVD
I'm glad to see IBM directly address TCPA issues. Their explaination of how TCPA works is better than what I had for the AMI/Slashdot interview.
What? You mean forgetting to explain what endorsement keys can be used for is the same as explaining TCPA?
Thanks for not bothering to answer my question in that interview, btw. Probably won't get an answer now, either.
IBM is perhaps honest when they claim that TCPA was not primarily designed for DRM. However, making it sound like TCPA can not be used as the foundation for DRM systems is either ivory tower wishful thinking or a bald faced lie.
I'm also happy to see a TCPA/TPM driver for Linux (was wondering when sopmebody would get around to that).
It's not like TCPA doesn't have any good features. But then again, I have not heard about one single good feature that can not be solved in an other way. (BIOS boot passwords, PGP/GPG, smartcards/USB key dongles, hardware RNGs, virtual machines and runtime sandboxes).
But if you really want us to believe that this thing is not ment for DRM, do the following changes:
1) Lose the "endorsement keys"
2) Design the hardware module so that I can load any private key of my own choice in it.
3) Provide a way for the machine owner to extract the keys from the module (say, a password protected serial connection, so that it is impossible without physical access to the machine and knowledge of a password)
Without those changes, TCPA _will_ be abused.