Does Microsoft's precedent mean the start of a slippery slope that will add a "pirate tax" to every piece of hardware that touches digital music?"
That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as I get to download as many songs as I want in exchange for said tax. If you're forcing me to pay you money to legitimize my iPod, then it should also legitimize any illegal music I might have on there.
Also, I resent the implication that my iPod has stolen music on it. It doesn't.
The market provides for both sides, the law provides for no one.
Anyone who thinks anarchocapitalism is a good idea should move to Somalia. The governmental vacuum is basically filled by loosely organized and bad-tempered gangs of mercenaries, although cell phone service is apparently cheap and plentiful. I would prefer the law, thanks.
I would remind you that Gingrich is not now running America. He has not held elected office since 1999, and is not likely to in the near future, long-shot presidential aspirations notwithstanding. He's politically radioactive after shutting down the government in budget battles with Clinton.
So, if you have a problem with people who can't control this power then being allowed on the internet to affect you and others, that's another matter altogether. Ownership and the resultant right to use are NOT the same as right to use publicly.
He didn't say anything about every single user. He was talking about power generation and health care computers, in this example. How does that extrapolate to every single user? So you're saying that folks that implement control software shouldn't be help responsible for security?
Ever heard of a botnet attack? (Granted, then it's not "every single user", it's a "sufficiently large number of users". Same principle.)
So, does the specification for Treacherous Computing include an owner override? NO! Why? Because the purpose of it is not for your noble cause of "securing critical systems," but for enforcing DRM. And that's why it's evil.
I half agree. I would be in favor of an override if and only if any person enabling the override became legally and financially responsible for the results.
Without that liability, you stick in an override, and anybody who fancies him/herself a "computer expert" will disable it.
There is also the sticky issue of enforcing that liability, tracking who opened up their computer. And to be fair, you would have to go up the chain as well, and make software companies legally responsible. And who would take responsibility for linux?
Unplug the network cable and lock them in a closet/data center that only authorized people can get into. If it doesn't NEED to be internet connected, why connect it to the internet? Why do power generation and health care computers have to be internet connected?
I agree, but remember Murphy's law -- the real version: "If there's more than one way to do a job, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then somebody will do it that way." If you're shipping control software that runs on commodity boxes (presumably because it's cheap), then it's inevitable that someone will connect it to the Internet for reasons of convenience, or even by accident. Depending on every single user to be individually conscientious about security is a bad plan.
Also, this ignores critical infrastructure applications that are by their nature connected, such as in telecoms.
My main computers will all be trusted in the sense that I chose all the software on them, and I control all of it. And I will use trusted computing features to keep them more secure from unwanted software and users.
This is my point though. I don't know you. Why should I trust that you are as concerned about security as you say you are?
It's when that choice is taken away from you... as it is with Trusted Computing hardware as it is designed today. The owner of the machine has his choices taken away -- his trust is forced.
To be honest with you, I don't have a problem with taking power away in principle, for the same reason that I think it's a good idea that drivers have licenses. You can't have a secure network that relies only on the good will and competence of the users.
Not everyone needs nor should have the power to do anything with their computer, because that power will be used for malicious ends without the user's awareness. Experience has demonstrated this conclusively.
I'm not sure "trusted computing (TM)" is the solution. I'm just wondering if RMS has thought about it. I think his position would be the opposite, that it is just fine to give root to anyone and everyone who wants it, but I'm wondering if he has any writings on the security and infrastructural implications of that point of view.
As you can imagine, this COULD be extremely valuable for security.
There is a huge number of crucial systems that are handled by computers connected to the internet -- including, but not limited to, power generation, banking, finance, telecommunication, and health care. Given that, prior to the proposal of DRM, there has been no systematic way to ensure that these critical systems are secured (and, in practice, security has been relatively lax), I think you underestimate the importance of security. The risk is neither theoretical nor trivial.
I would like to know whether RMS has a proposal for securing the internet, or if he considers it an important problem.
My post was intended to be a satire of the weak arguments I see on this site opposing IP protection.
Without value in IP, there is no economic reason to innovate. The only reason left is for the prestige value, while doing something else to pay the bills. This is basically a "hobbyist" mentality, and is antithetical to the notion of professional engineering.
No, you don't understand. In the absence of intellectual property protection (as in China), you will see innovation and development flourish, since it will be perfectly legal for other firms to do that thing which is most valuable to innovation: copying. And even though there is no value in doing so, people will continue to innovate for some reason. The engineers should charge for performances or sell T-shirts with their designs on them.
Expanding copyright protection to a term equal to two lifetimes means that now even some of the good stuff is being lost because it is not allowed to preserve it.
Huh. So the FSF will win by default. You gotta hand it to somebody who is willing to play the long game.
Say western civilization is disrupted for a period of time that is short by historical standards -- 40-50 years would be enough. Electrical power is only sporadically available, and as a result the Internet collapses and PCs become useless. With much more important issues to deal with, such as finding food, people ignore digital data storage.
The era of restoration comes. However, when people blow the dust off those old DVDs and players, they discover that the DVDs have decayed to the point of unreadability. Massive quantities of archived data and knowledge are irretrievably lost.
The main problem in our age is thermodynamics -- information is stored so densely that it tends to decay naturally, on its own. By contrast, ancient stone carvings (as well as their keys, such as the Rosetta stone), are sufficiently durable to last (basically) for ever.
Let's not forget that most governments have unionized employees, which (if true) is material to any massive IT redeployment. In true Slashdot fashion, the following post is pure conjecture and generalization. But I think it's plausible.
Ideally you would want to hire expert sysadmins on contract to conduct a pilot project such as this one. However, there is likely to be language in the union contract forbidding a contract employee from taking a job that might be done by a unionized employee. Unless a sufficiently far-sighted employer included specific language covering a Linux deployment, the deployment would necessarily default to the in-house IT people.
And you had better believe that the union folks would be vocal about it. Especially if they -- as Windows experts -- could be replaced by Linux sysadmins in a wholesale system turnover. In fact say they believed that Linux might require fewer sysadmins, thus threatening their jobs. Maybe they wanted it to fail for that reason? Again, pure speculation, but plausible given my previous interactions with unions.
This is not to say that unions are useless or evil. Or even that any of this happened or was a factor in Birmingham. But unions do form part of the institutional culture, and if not taken into account, they can cause projects like this one to fail.
It keeps the blood circulating through the body until a paramedic can use a defibulator to actually restart it.
That is not correct. A defibrillator is useless on a person whose heart has stopped. It is used when the heart goes into "fibrillation", which is an uncoordinated sequence of heart muscle contractions that result in no net blood flow. Since fibrillation almost never resolves itself, left untreated it will cause death within minutes.
In fact the defibrillator works by applying an electrical shock which stops the heart -- thus ending the fibrillation. The hope is that the heart's normal rhythm will start again immediately thereafter.
In CPR, the idea is to maintain blood flow and oxygen in the lungs until (hopefully) the heart starts again on its own. This is why CPR has such a low success rate (5-10%), although still much better than the zero per cent success rate of doing nothing.
Disclaimer: I am not a doctor. (Although I have a PhD, so technically...)
Slashdot Mirror
Does Microsoft's precedent mean the start of a slippery slope that will add a "pirate tax" to every piece of hardware that touches digital music?"
That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as I get to download as many songs as I want in exchange for said tax. If you're forcing me to pay you money to legitimize my iPod, then it should also legitimize any illegal music I might have on there.
Also, I resent the implication that my iPod has stolen music on it. It doesn't.
The market provides for both sides, the law provides for no one.
Anyone who thinks anarchocapitalism is a good idea should move to Somalia. The governmental vacuum is basically filled by loosely organized and bad-tempered gangs of mercenaries, although cell phone service is apparently cheap and plentiful. I would prefer the law, thanks.
I would remind you that Gingrich is not now running America. He has not held elected office since 1999, and is not likely to in the near future, long-shot presidential aspirations notwithstanding. He's politically radioactive after shutting down the government in budget battles with Clinton.
I hope they get Wilmer Valderrama to play Junis.
How can you not understand why this is bad?
I'm an academic. I question things. It's my job.
So, according to you:
Strong IP protection = some innovation (USA)
Weak IP protection = less innovation (China)
No IP protection = most innovation
I'm wondering why you think there's that bump in the middle. If you're right, shouldn't weaker IP protection lead to more innovation?
So, if you have a problem with people who can't control this power then being allowed on the internet to affect you and others, that's another matter altogether. Ownership and the resultant right to use are NOT the same as right to use publicly.
Bingo.
He didn't say anything about every single user. He was talking about power generation and health care computers, in this example. How does that extrapolate to every single user? So you're saying that folks that implement control software shouldn't be help responsible for security? Ever heard of a botnet attack? (Granted, then it's not "every single user", it's a "sufficiently large number of users". Same principle.)
No, you wouldn't. The owner of the machine is the owner of the machine, and that's it. There's nothing else to consider.
Then why aren't we currently holding users civilly liable for damages inflicted by their poorly configured machine? Maybe we should be.
So, does the specification for Treacherous Computing include an owner override? NO! Why? Because the purpose of it is not for your noble cause of "securing critical systems," but for enforcing DRM. And that's why it's evil.
I half agree. I would be in favor of an override if and only if any person enabling the override became legally and financially responsible for the results.
Without that liability, you stick in an override, and anybody who fancies him/herself a "computer expert" will disable it.
There is also the sticky issue of enforcing that liability, tracking who opened up their computer. And to be fair, you would have to go up the chain as well, and make software companies legally responsible. And who would take responsibility for linux?
Unplug the network cable and lock them in a closet/data center that only authorized people can get into. If it doesn't NEED to be internet connected, why connect it to the internet? Why do power generation and health care computers have to be internet connected?
I agree, but remember Murphy's law -- the real version: "If there's more than one way to do a job, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then somebody will do it that way." If you're shipping control software that runs on commodity boxes (presumably because it's cheap), then it's inevitable that someone will connect it to the Internet for reasons of convenience, or even by accident. Depending on every single user to be individually conscientious about security is a bad plan.
Also, this ignores critical infrastructure applications that are by their nature connected, such as in telecoms.
My main computers will all be trusted in the sense that I chose all the software on them, and I control all of it. And I will use trusted computing features to keep them more secure from unwanted software and users.
This is my point though. I don't know you. Why should I trust that you are as concerned about security as you say you are?
It's when that choice is taken away from you... as it is with Trusted Computing hardware as it is designed today. The owner of the machine has his choices taken away -- his trust is forced.
To be honest with you, I don't have a problem with taking power away in principle, for the same reason that I think it's a good idea that drivers have licenses. You can't have a secure network that relies only on the good will and competence of the users.
Not everyone needs nor should have the power to do anything with their computer, because that power will be used for malicious ends without the user's awareness. Experience has demonstrated this conclusively.
I'm not sure "trusted computing (TM)" is the solution. I'm just wondering if RMS has thought about it. I think his position would be the opposite, that it is just fine to give root to anyone and everyone who wants it, but I'm wondering if he has any writings on the security and infrastructural implications of that point of view.
As you can imagine, this COULD be extremely valuable for security.
There is a huge number of crucial systems that are handled by computers connected to the internet -- including, but not limited to, power generation, banking, finance, telecommunication, and health care. Given that, prior to the proposal of DRM, there has been no systematic way to ensure that these critical systems are secured (and, in practice, security has been relatively lax), I think you underestimate the importance of security. The risk is neither theoretical nor trivial.
I would like to know whether RMS has a proposal for securing the internet, or if he considers it an important problem.
A complete lack of patents and copyright would increase innovation.
Yes, because China is the real hotbed of innovation in the world today, not the USA. Is that what you think?
most of the finest feats in engineering come more out of pride/passion for a subject than profit. this is specially true in automobiles.
Right, because there's no tech company in the world that actually innovates. Only people who are not in it for a profit. In their spare time.
My post was intended to be a satire of the weak arguments I see on this site opposing IP protection.
Without value in IP, there is no economic reason to innovate. The only reason left is for the prestige value, while doing something else to pay the bills. This is basically a "hobbyist" mentality, and is antithetical to the notion of professional engineering.
So I actually agree with you.
No, you don't understand. In the absence of intellectual property protection (as in China), you will see innovation and development flourish, since it will be perfectly legal for other firms to do that thing which is most valuable to innovation: copying. And even though there is no value in doing so, people will continue to innovate for some reason. The engineers should charge for performances or sell T-shirts with their designs on them.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!
Somewhat hard, given that it predates Beowulf by at least 600 years.
Expanding copyright protection to a term equal to two lifetimes means that now even some of the good stuff is being lost because it is not allowed to preserve it.
Huh. So the FSF will win by default. You gotta hand it to somebody who is willing to play the long game.
Say western civilization is disrupted for a period of time that is short by historical standards -- 40-50 years would be enough. Electrical power is only sporadically available, and as a result the Internet collapses and PCs become useless. With much more important issues to deal with, such as finding food, people ignore digital data storage.
The era of restoration comes. However, when people blow the dust off those old DVDs and players, they discover that the DVDs have decayed to the point of unreadability. Massive quantities of archived data and knowledge are irretrievably lost.
The main problem in our age is thermodynamics -- information is stored so densely that it tends to decay naturally, on its own. By contrast, ancient stone carvings (as well as their keys, such as the Rosetta stone), are sufficiently durable to last (basically) for ever.
Let's not forget that most governments have unionized employees, which (if true) is material to any massive IT redeployment. In true Slashdot fashion, the following post is pure conjecture and generalization. But I think it's plausible.
Ideally you would want to hire expert sysadmins on contract to conduct a pilot project such as this one. However, there is likely to be language in the union contract forbidding a contract employee from taking a job that might be done by a unionized employee. Unless a sufficiently far-sighted employer included specific language covering a Linux deployment, the deployment would necessarily default to the in-house IT people.
And you had better believe that the union folks would be vocal about it. Especially if they -- as Windows experts -- could be replaced by Linux sysadmins in a wholesale system turnover. In fact say they believed that Linux might require fewer sysadmins, thus threatening their jobs. Maybe they wanted it to fail for that reason? Again, pure speculation, but plausible given my previous interactions with unions.
This is not to say that unions are useless or evil. Or even that any of this happened or was a factor in Birmingham. But unions do form part of the institutional culture, and if not taken into account, they can cause projects like this one to fail.
It keeps the blood circulating through the body until a paramedic can use a defibulator to actually restart it.
...)
That is not correct. A defibrillator is useless on a person whose heart has stopped. It is used when the heart goes into "fibrillation", which is an uncoordinated sequence of heart muscle contractions that result in no net blood flow. Since fibrillation almost never resolves itself, left untreated it will cause death within minutes.
In fact the defibrillator works by applying an electrical shock which stops the heart -- thus ending the fibrillation. The hope is that the heart's normal rhythm will start again immediately thereafter.
In CPR, the idea is to maintain blood flow and oxygen in the lungs until (hopefully) the heart starts again on its own. This is why CPR has such a low success rate (5-10%), although still much better than the zero per cent success rate of doing nothing.
Disclaimer: I am not a doctor. (Although I have a PhD, so technically
I'm not seeing the incentive for an energy company to pretend peak oil doesn't exist.
In fact, the scarcer oil seems, the higher the price goes, and the more money the oil companies make.
So I guess it's okay if your neighbor taps into your phone line, gas main, and cable TV, if any of those cross his/her property at any point.
(Oh, by the way I hope you didn't read any of this post since I didn't give any explicit permission for you to do so, including this sentence)
I'll respond to your lame attempt to be clever after you explain how you misconfigured Slashdot to post your comment.