on tcpa systems "we only prevent software attacks", "we're completely innocent", "the other guys are the bad guys" etc. the operating system can enforce palladium-like systems. (it can verify at boot time it is the only program running on the machine, which is enough for palladium to be implemented "securily", and the sealed storage will make it utterly impossible to make compatible programs)
You know what the response from a crypto researcher was ? "They will not do that, surely people will not accept it". I wonder, but I most defineately will not take the chance.
You cannot change the root certificate in your system. You most defineately cannot pick who you trust with tcpa. You cannot, for example "trust" yourself (which is the whole point of tcpa of course).
What's wrong with that. DRM and TCPA offers a secure system for digital media. You have the option to disable it. The media distributers have the option to say it will only work with TCPA/DRM. The only people I see trying to take away choice are slashdot extremist who don't want anyone to have the option to use TCPA/DRM.
The problem is the bsa companies. TCPA allows for forced incompatibility (ie tcpa makes the writing of ANY import filter for tcpa "enabled" (user disabled) software an utter impossibility (this is illegal of course, if not by the letter then by the spirit of the law).
THAT's what is is made to do. THAT's what it will be used for.
Q: "You'd like to watch your home movies on program X" A: "I am sorry I encrypted them" Q: "Can I export them ?" A: "No you can't, that would enable you to do copyright violations" Q: "Can I have the key ?" A: "No you can't"
expect to hear this from a helpdesk VERY soon after tcpa is introduced. (Of course I am overestimating the intelligence of a helpdesk worker but...)
Funny you should mention that, as both Mozilla and Emacs have both I/O, memory management and process scheduling.
-> if you think a little bit about this, both have been ported, and thus need at least a wrapper around the os-specific functions. But linux & windows are quite different in the I/O department, so basically you write an abstraction layer that does part of the work on windows.
-> as for memory management, every programming language has it's own form of memory management, so both Elisp, XUL and javascript have it (some simply copy other's routines, generally the C library, but they still have a wrapper for it, but the C library only has alloc() and free() and the programming language generally has to call these, and this is part of the memory management) (btw yes, I know some languages (C comes to mind) force you to do everything yourself).
-> as for process scheduling, both have an event system, which fullfills the exact same role as a scheduler. Both activate pieces on code when an event occurs (wether that event is a timer, or a mouseclick) (and yes, both linux and windows activate an application if it gets a keypress or mouse click) (generally application schedulers are cooperative instead of pre-emptive, except in multithreaded applications)
I guess "windows-only" will truly mean windows only with tcpa (and webmasters will never do this, as we all know).
TCPA provides one thing, and one thing only (unless you pay thousands of dollars) : forced incompatibility, a windows program will NOT work on wine, or any other system, after this is done.
Websites will check you configuration and refuse to send anything to other configs (we've seen it happen before). Browsers will identify themselves, and we will no longer be able to lie about our browser at all. MSN, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc will be off-limits to anyone using anything other than windows. (Remember the sort of stuff this gets used for, websites where you cannot take screenshots, DRM, mails that destroy themselves,...)
It is quite obvious that this is the whole purpose of tcpa in the first place, to "protect intellectual property". I would think long and hard before endorsing it to anyone as you will NOT be doing them a favor.
true, it depends on the app, BUT most apps don't really take advantage of bandwith of memory transfers (it would only help if you are reading a large (ie larger than your cachesize) continouus section of ram. How many apps do that ?
btw filling the queue on a "true 533 bus" would be a lot harder than it is now
If you disagree with RMS... why don't you stop using the software he wrote with his convictions ?
-> no linux (gcc required, you MIGHT try icc) -> no gnome (maybe parts of kde, IF you get it compiled without gcc) ->...
(even parts of windows 2k/xp were written by open-source "zealots" so I suggest you stay away from it too...)
Keep in mind that those ideals also started the cooperative development that free source code sharing enables, so indirectly he's responsible for much more software.
Re:silly quotes from article..
on
Cringely on P2P
·
· Score: 2
I'd sooner compare a PC with great audio software to a typewriter of 50 years ago. And guess what.. 'literary establishments' are STILL necessary for widespread ditribution. The problem is really all in the distribution. Let's face it, if we wanted to we could affordably publish text in a comparible quality format to that of which appears in book stores today. The technology is certainly available, but it's not really replacing the big publishing/distributers at all.
Aren't we ?
You seem to be using the internet... exactly what does it do ? Think about it for 20 secs.
It's all but removed the necessity for books (you can find every piece of information you need on the internet), books are now bought not because you need them, but for COMFORT factor ("I like a physical book" type argument).
I'd even go as far as saying that the internet has more choice, and often has better choices available (there is no book on php that matches www.php.net, there is no book on apache that matches it's website, there are no books on linux that match the linuxdoc site).
There are hoards of novels available (did you bother to check kazaa for this type of thing ?).
They do not have the right to take matters in their own hands. The court system is not a tool to be bargained with, and I am sure a judge will see things cleared up. You should even be able to get a nice compensation for being threatened.
Take those letters to the police NOW.
And the best part ? Extortion is a criminal offence (it is here). The person who sent those letters is personally liable. If you get the police on his tail, he has a chance of finding himself in prison for a few months (and for the very least you could get his computer confiscated and his house searched), and he will have to personally foot any bills the court grants you (and if the company pays them, they will have to pay big money on taxes for doing that).
That $14000 is much better spent on a lawyer, in my opinion.
Keep in mind that they play this by the numbers, if a sufficient number of people move against them, they will lose money on this, and the court will not let them make "examples" of anyone.
BTW do not forget to tell newspapers, magazines, as well as anyone who cares (and a few who don't) about this. Because we live in a democracy and a LOT of people use kazaa;-).
"look at this way: in return for having a 30% discount at blah blah steakhouse, all you have to do is attend a short sales pitch by a salesman about the latest bbq sauce on the market. its only right that you hear out the salesman. whether you buy the bbq sauce or not is up to you. you sure as hell can't just walk out on the salesman before he gets a chance to do his pitch."
I've shown your first example to be flat out wrong, yet you continue giving them, you might have an incredible stroke of luck and give one example but those examples are vastly outnumbered.
Even if (I do not agree to your point) the industry did indeed discover that particular substance, they could not even start to look without the university doing the hard part (figuring out how reverse transcriptase works). The industry simply did the easy work (finding the stick to put in the proverbial wheel).
If I were to accept your assumption you'd get to this
-> the institute analysed the enzyme, figured out it's function, a way to identify it, to check if a given molecule functions and it's molecular structure (this is VERY VERY VERY VERY hard, it's been done for only a small number of enzymes ( the industry let a number of random generated (I'm not kidding about the random part) substances loose on the enzyme, until one proved to inhibit it, this, you can do in your kitchen (provided the university gives you access to a sample of reverse transcriptase). For some reason this is called research.
* imagine a 3 dimensional space containing atoms (size of the structure : about 3/1000000000000 meter). You need to find the 3 dimensional layout given measurements of the radiation they put out when heated (measurement size about 1 mm, and you get one single value). 30% of the measurements you get are flat out wrong, and every now and then the structure changes for no apparent reason (because that's what enzymes do, they change their molecular structure to facilitate changes in another molecule)
"Early Anti-HIV Treatments
For several years, the only drugs available for treating HIV infection were nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors. These drugs interfere with the action of a specific HIV enzyme (RT) involved in the replication cycle of HIV. The first anti-HIV drug, zidovudine (AZT), was originally developed in 1964 as a possible cancer treatment but was found to be ineffective against tumor cells. However, collaboration between the National Cancer Institute and the pharmaceutical company Burroughs Wellcome led to the discovery in the early 1980s of AZT's ability to suppress HIV replication in the test tube and paved the way for clinical trials of AZT.
Burroughs Wellcome, with input from NIH and the Food and Drug Administration, successfully conducted testing of AZT in HIV-infected individuals. Subsequently, NIAID's AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) conducted several clinical trials in partnership with industry to test four other nucleoside RT inhibitors: zalcitabine (ddC), didanosine (ddI), stavudine (D4T), and lamivudine (3TC). All five drugs are now licensed in the United States. Additional ACTG studies demonstrated the benefits of AZT therapy for preventing mother-to-infant transmission of HIV and for lowering the risk for developing AIDS in persons with HIV infection.
Unfortunately, HIV rapidly develops resistance to these and other anti-HIV drugs. Researchers have attacked the problem of drug resistance-which is particularly harmful because of HIV's high rate of replication and mutation-by using regimens of multiple anti-HIV drugs. NIAID-supported researchers were among the first to show (in 1995) that treatment with combinations of AZT and other nucleoside analogue RT inhibitors was more effective than treatment with AZT alone. In addition, combining 3TC with AZT slowed the virus from developing resistance to AZT and, in some cases, restored AZT sensitivity in patients who carried virus that had become resistant to the drug. As a result of these NIAID-supported studies, combination therapy emerged as the preferred treatment modality for HIV infection."
note the sentence "However, collaboration between the National Cancer Institute and the pharmaceutical company Burroughs Wellcome". From experience I can assure you that "collaboration" means the industry bought patents from the research institute. They just want to milk aids patients as much as possible without doing any real research (theoretical, or at least research that actually analyses the virus, dissemintates it, not just searching for a drug that eliminates 1% more virii than their last "discovery")
Also you can see from the above paragraph that the research will only be effective in the short term. Research in this direction, no matter how far it goes, will not eliminate aids, it will merely slow it down.
btw. I agree there is a (very) small fraction of stuff coming from pharmaceutical industries. But it is minute
get your lazy bum out of your chair and check WHO actually discovered things.
ALL (not some, ALL) medicines currently known against aids were first researched at a university
same for virtually any other disease.
You seem to think that competition (= not cooperating, but working to kill off, or at least bancrupt, your collegues) works, it doesn't.
Even the simplest of molecules used in the human body has thousands and thousands of possible incarnations. WAY to much for even multinationals to research.
In universities, where researchers are given a free hand in research, they occasionally stumble upon new medicines. Eg. someone is researching some ancient plant and discovers a poison the plant uses to kill of insects that helps against a disease.
Understand that we don't understand even the energy production in a cell, transport systems haven't even all been identified.
The processes we're talking about are not only VERY sensitive, but also play on a very small scale (transport systems in a cell for example, work by merging, melting, mixing, breaking, etc molecules that contain thousands of atoms, and each and every one of those atoms has a function. Determining the composition of a single of the molecules is a work that takes years with the most advanced tools available.
Keep in mind that the biggest thing that happened last year in biotech was the succesful analysis of ONE enzym involved in energy production in the cell (out of more than 10.000 different enzyms).
That analysis took 5 years of intensive communication between a lot of different universities. With competition (that means without communication) you don't stand a chance.
Most, if not all biotech startups fail, promise great things, but deliver none. And these are the things you want to stimulate ?
why ? new viruses are designed to subvert them. I've done it, installing 5 virusscanners to check if, and how they detect your virus. (btw my virus was a.com infector without a chdir instruction, not very dangerous, but it worked)
example:
wrong:
-> to_infect = "*.com";// oops, heuristics detect this
I have yet to see the first scanner that detects this one. The difference in codesize is about 3 extra bytes (assuming you were using strcat anyway) so in today's 500kb viruses it is negligeable.
Heuristics are nice, they do have some effect, but they are no solution.
Virusscanning is inherently responsive. The best they can hope to do is to repair the damage when it is done. They have no use whatsoever for online worms.
I once did dd if=disk.img of=/dev/md0 instead of/dev/fd0 (only 1 letter difference). It took about 4 days of reading docs before I even could begin any recovery.
fucking up your filesystem is easy, and you generally have yourself to blame (in my experience).
1) magma is the SAME material as the earth's crust, which is the same material as a pile of mud in the street. It's just a bit hotter.
2) the would be no "popping" involved. The material above lava is rock under enourmous pressure. Your shaft would collapse on your drill before it would even reach magma and thereby instantly re-"corking" the champagne (not to mention more than probably cutting your drill's power cord)
3) We have a lot of material capable of surviving those conditions, It is a much bigger problem to stabilize the shaft. There have been a LOT of accidents because we were not capable of stabilizing a shaft of 300-800 meters (mine elevators getting crushed etc), we most defineately cannot stabilize a shaft of 10-20 kilometers deep, and don't even dream about a shaft in molten rock
Can you imagine how easy it would be to lay ethernet cable with these things ? Why if they sold one for, say 200$ it would blow all wireless networks out of the sky, and replace it with something that cannot be interfered with. Cable broken ? Put in a new one, it's only half an hour's work and $5 for 50 meter cable.
It would also be substantially faster than wireless (10 mbit ? Right..., wires easily maintain a constant data stream of 100 mbit over 150 meters or more, and even gigabit speeds are within reach for consumers right now)
This could truly be the internet for Jack Anonymous. The free and open interconnect for everyone, free (well fixed cost of $5 every 10 years or so)
1. It encrypts data (YOUR data)
2. It doesn't give you the key (you have to ask the CA (ie M$) "can I please have the key to..."
Now imagine what will hapen in the following scenario
1. You type in an email to a user with subject "Microsoft sucks"
2. The recipient's system asks microsoft for the decryption key "can I please get a key for the email 'Microsoft Sucks'" ?
They obviously won't do it the first few months, but this GIVES THEM THE OPTION TO REFUSE. Any data you trust to palladium, microsoft has the ONLY key to.
Slashdot Mirror
yes, and nerve gas is a tool that can be used for good or evil...
It's just a little bit too obvious that it's going to be used for evil, even before anyone did anything with it.
you compile it ... you install it ... palladium finds it "insecure" (not approved by ms) ... the cpu won't execute it. This is palladium.
So no you can not run your own software.
Any other questions ?
on tcpa systems "we only prevent software attacks", "we're completely innocent", "the other guys are the bad guys" etc. the operating system can enforce palladium-like systems. (it can verify at boot time it is the only program running on the machine, which is enough for palladium to be implemented "securily", and the sealed storage will make it utterly impossible to make compatible programs)
You know what the response from a crypto researcher was ? "They will not do that, surely people will not accept it". I wonder, but I most defineately will not take the chance.
It encrypts your stuff ... doesn't give you the key ... That's tcpa
You cannot change the root certificate in your system. You most defineately cannot pick who you trust with tcpa. You cannot, for example "trust" yourself (which is the whole point of tcpa of course).
The problem is the bsa companies. TCPA allows for forced incompatibility (ie tcpa makes the writing of ANY import filter for tcpa "enabled" (user disabled) software an utter impossibility (this is illegal of course, if not by the letter then by the spirit of the law).
THAT's what is is made to do. THAT's what it will be used for.
Q: "You'd like to watch your home movies on program X"
A: "I am sorry I encrypted them"
Q: "Can I export them ?"
A: "No you can't, that would enable you to do copyright violations"
Q: "Can I have the key ?"
A: "No you can't"
expect to hear this from a helpdesk VERY soon after tcpa is introduced. (Of course I am overestimating the intelligence of a helpdesk worker but
Funny you should mention that, as both Mozilla and Emacs have both I/O, memory management and process scheduling.
;-)
-> if you think a little bit about this, both have been ported, and thus need at least a wrapper around the os-specific functions. But linux & windows are quite different in the I/O department, so basically you write an abstraction layer that does part of the work on windows.
-> as for memory management, every programming language has it's own form of memory management, so both Elisp, XUL and javascript have it (some simply copy other's routines, generally the C library, but they still have a wrapper for it, but the C library only has alloc() and free() and the programming language generally has to call these, and this is part of the memory management) (btw yes, I know some languages (C comes to mind) force you to do everything yourself).
-> as for process scheduling, both have an event system, which fullfills the exact same role as a scheduler. Both activate pieces on code when an event occurs (wether that event is a timer, or a mouseclick) (and yes, both linux and windows activate an application if it gets a keypress or mouse click) (generally application schedulers are cooperative instead of pre-emptive, except in multithreaded applications)
Any other questions ?
I guess "windows-only" will truly mean windows only with tcpa (and webmasters will never do this, as we all know).
...)
TCPA provides one thing, and one thing only (unless you pay thousands of dollars) : forced incompatibility, a windows program will NOT work on wine, or any other system, after this is done.
Websites will check you configuration and refuse to send anything to other configs (we've seen it happen before). Browsers will identify themselves, and we will no longer be able to lie about our browser at all. MSN, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc will be off-limits to anyone using anything other than windows. (Remember the sort of stuff this gets used for, websites where you cannot take screenshots, DRM, mails that destroy themselves,
It is quite obvious that this is the whole purpose of tcpa in the first place, to "protect intellectual property". I would think long and hard before endorsing it to anyone as you will NOT be doing them a favor.
I assume you will be paying the fees required for certification ?
http://arstechnica.com/paedia/b/bandwidth-latency/ bandwidth-latency-1.html
true, it depends on the app, BUT most apps don't really take advantage of bandwith of memory transfers (it would only help if you are reading a large (ie larger than your cachesize) continouus section of ram. How many apps do that ?
btw filling the queue on a "true 533 bus" would be a lot harder than it is now
If you disagree with RMS ... why don't you stop using the software he wrote with his convictions ?
...
...)
-> no linux (gcc required, you MIGHT try icc)
-> no gnome (maybe parts of kde, IF you get it compiled without gcc)
->
(even parts of windows 2k/xp were written by open-source "zealots" so I suggest you stay away from it too
Keep in mind that those ideals also started the cooperative development that free source code sharing enables, so indirectly he's responsible for much more software.
I'd sooner compare a PC with great audio software to a typewriter of 50 years ago. And guess what.. 'literary establishments' are STILL necessary for widespread ditribution. The problem is really all in the distribution. Let's face it, if we wanted to we could affordably publish text in a comparible quality format to that of which appears in book stores today. The technology is certainly available, but it's not really replacing the big publishing/distributers at all.
... exactly what does it do ? Think about it for 20 secs.
Aren't we ?
You seem to be using the internet
It's all but removed the necessity for books (you can find every piece of information you need on the internet), books are now bought not because you need them, but for COMFORT factor ("I like a physical book" type argument).
I'd even go as far as saying that the internet has more choice, and often has better choices available (there is no book on php that matches www.php.net, there is no book on apache that matches it's website, there are no books on linux that match the linuxdoc site).
There are hoards of novels available (did you bother to check kazaa for this type of thing ?).
IANAL, but
;-).
They do not have the right to take matters in their own hands. The court system is not a tool to be bargained with, and I am sure a judge will see things cleared up. You should even be able to get a nice compensation for being threatened.
Take those letters to the police NOW.
And the best part ? Extortion is a criminal offence (it is here). The person who sent those letters is personally liable. If you get the police on his tail, he has a chance of finding himself in prison for a few months (and for the very least you could get his computer confiscated and his house searched), and he will have to personally foot any bills the court grants you (and if the company pays them, they will have to pay big money on taxes for doing that).
That $14000 is much better spent on a lawyer, in my opinion.
Keep in mind that they play this by the numbers, if a sufficient number of people move against them, they will lose money on this, and the court will not let them make "examples" of anyone.
BTW do not forget to tell newspapers, magazines, as well as anyone who cares (and a few who don't) about this. Because we live in a democracy and a LOT of people use kazaa
"look at this way: in return for having a 30% discount at blah blah steakhouse, all you have to do is attend a short sales pitch by a salesman about the latest bbq sauce on the market. its only right that you hear out the salesman. whether you buy the bbq sauce or not is up to you. you sure as hell can't just walk out on the salesman before he gets a chance to do his pitch."
why not ?
I've shown your first example to be flat out wrong, yet you continue giving them, you might have an incredible stroke of luck and give one example but those examples are vastly outnumbered.
Even if (I do not agree to your point) the industry did indeed discover that particular substance, they could not even start to look without the university doing the hard part (figuring out how reverse transcriptase works). The industry simply did the easy work (finding the stick to put in the proverbial wheel).
If I were to accept your assumption you'd get to this
-> the institute analysed the enzyme, figured out it's function, a way to identify it, to check if a given molecule functions and it's molecular structure (this is VERY VERY VERY VERY hard, it's been done for only a small number of enzymes ( the industry let a number of random generated (I'm not kidding about the random part) substances loose on the enzyme, until one proved to inhibit it, this, you can do in your kitchen (provided the university gives you access to a sample of reverse transcriptase). For some reason this is called research.
* imagine a 3 dimensional space containing atoms (size of the structure : about 3/1000000000000 meter). You need to find the 3 dimensional layout given measurements of the radiation they put out when heated (measurement size about 1 mm, and you get one single value). 30% of the measurements you get are flat out wrong, and every now and then the structure changes for no apparent reason (because that's what enzymes do, they change their molecular structure to facilitate changes in another molecule)
"Early Anti-HIV Treatments
For several years, the only drugs available for treating HIV infection were nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors. These drugs interfere with the action of a specific HIV enzyme (RT) involved in the replication cycle of HIV. The first anti-HIV drug, zidovudine (AZT), was originally developed in 1964 as a possible cancer treatment but was found to be ineffective against tumor cells. However, collaboration between the National Cancer Institute and the pharmaceutical company Burroughs Wellcome led to the discovery in the early 1980s of AZT's ability to suppress HIV replication in the test tube and paved the way for clinical trials of AZT.
Burroughs Wellcome, with input from NIH and the Food and Drug Administration, successfully conducted testing of AZT in HIV-infected individuals. Subsequently, NIAID's AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) conducted several clinical trials in partnership with industry to test four other nucleoside RT inhibitors: zalcitabine (ddC), didanosine (ddI), stavudine (D4T), and lamivudine (3TC). All five drugs are now licensed in the United States. Additional ACTG studies demonstrated the benefits of AZT therapy for preventing mother-to-infant transmission of HIV and for lowering the risk for developing AIDS in persons with HIV infection.
Unfortunately, HIV rapidly develops resistance to these and other anti-HIV drugs. Researchers have attacked the problem of drug resistance-which is particularly harmful because of HIV's high rate of replication and mutation-by using regimens of multiple anti-HIV drugs. NIAID-supported researchers were among the first to show (in 1995) that treatment with combinations of AZT and other nucleoside analogue RT inhibitors was more effective than treatment with AZT alone. In addition, combining 3TC with AZT slowed the virus from developing resistance to AZT and, in some cases, restored AZT sensitivity in patients who carried virus that had become resistant to the drug. As a result of these NIAID-supported studies, combination therapy emerged as the preferred treatment modality for HIV infection."
note the sentence "However, collaboration between the National Cancer Institute and the pharmaceutical company Burroughs Wellcome". From experience I can assure you that "collaboration" means the industry bought patents from the research institute. They just want to milk aids patients as much as possible without doing any real research (theoretical, or at least research that actually analyses the virus, dissemintates it, not just searching for a drug that eliminates 1% more virii than their last "discovery")
Also you can see from the above paragraph that the research will only be effective in the short term. Research in this direction, no matter how far it goes, will not eliminate aids, it will merely slow it down.
btw. I agree there is a (very) small fraction of stuff coming from pharmaceutical industries. But it is minute
*ahum*
get your lazy bum out of your chair and check WHO actually discovered things.
ALL (not some, ALL) medicines currently known against aids were first researched at a university
same for virtually any other disease.
You seem to think that competition (= not cooperating, but working to kill off, or at least bancrupt, your collegues) works, it doesn't.
Even the simplest of molecules used in the human body has thousands and thousands of possible incarnations. WAY to much for even multinationals to research.
In universities, where researchers are given a free hand in research, they occasionally stumble upon new medicines. Eg. someone is researching some ancient plant and discovers a poison the plant uses to kill of insects that helps against a disease.
Understand that we don't understand even the energy production in a cell, transport systems haven't even all been identified.
The processes we're talking about are not only VERY sensitive, but also play on a very small scale (transport systems in a cell for example, work by merging, melting, mixing, breaking, etc molecules that contain thousands of atoms, and each and every one of those atoms has a function. Determining the composition of a single of the molecules is a work that takes years with the most advanced tools available.
Keep in mind that the biggest thing that happened last year in biotech was the succesful analysis of ONE enzym involved in energy production in the cell (out of more than 10.000 different enzyms).
That analysis took 5 years of intensive communication between a lot of different universities. With competition (that means without communication) you don't stand a chance.
Most, if not all biotech startups fail, promise great things, but deliver none. And these are the things you want to stimulate ?
heuristic scanning is very ineffective.
.com infector without a chdir instruction, not very dangerous, but it worked)
:
// oops, heuristics detect this
why ? new viruses are designed to subvert them. I've done it, installing 5 virusscanners to check if, and how they detect your virus. (btw my virus was a
example
wrong:
-> to_infect = "*.com";
right:
-> boem = "*.c";
-> othervariable = 5;
-> to_infect = strcat(boem,"om");
I have yet to see the first scanner that detects this one. The difference in codesize is about 3 extra bytes (assuming you were using strcat anyway) so in today's 500kb viruses it is negligeable.
Heuristics are nice, they do have some effect, but they are no solution.
Virusscanning is inherently responsive. The best they can hope to do is to repair the damage when it is done. They have no use whatsoever for online worms.
> Why? Because they want to.
I want 2+2 to equal 5. This won't happen however much I want it to.
Fortunately it can be shown that non-copyability is just like that very statement, impossible.
As anyone can easily see, there is no way to change either fact. Absolutely no way whatsoever.
I once did dd if=disk.img of=/dev/md0 instead of /dev/fd0 (only 1 letter difference). It took about 4 days of reading docs before I even could begin any recovery.
fucking up your filesystem is easy, and you generally have yourself to blame (in my experience).
How does encrypting a user's files with a key, and then denying the key to the user improve security ?
The user can no longer independently access his own files, thereby considerably DECREASING security, most defineately not increasing.
You have a hell of an imagination ...
1) magma is the SAME material as the earth's crust, which is the same material as a pile of mud in the street. It's just a bit hotter.
2) the would be no "popping" involved. The material above lava is rock under enourmous pressure. Your shaft would collapse on your drill before it would even reach magma and thereby instantly re-"corking" the champagne (not to mention more than probably cutting your drill's power cord)
3) We have a lot of material capable of surviving those conditions, It is a much bigger problem to stabilize the shaft. There have been a LOT of accidents because we were not capable of stabilizing a shaft of 300-800 meters (mine elevators getting crushed etc), we most defineately cannot stabilize a shaft of 10-20 kilometers deep, and don't even dream about a shaft in molten rock
Can you imagine how easy it would be to lay ethernet cable with these things ? Why if they sold one for, say 200$ it would blow all wireless networks out of the sky, and replace it with something that cannot be interfered with. Cable broken ? Put in a new one, it's only half an hour's work and $5 for 50 meter cable.
..., wires easily maintain a constant data stream of 100 mbit over 150 meters or more, and even gigabit speeds are within reach for consumers right now)
It would also be substantially faster than wireless (10 mbit ? Right
This could truly be the internet for Jack Anonymous. The free and open interconnect for everyone, free (well fixed cost of $5 every 10 years or so)
Moreover, can you imagine what would happen if a config file editor would do this ?
Seems like a really bad idea.
Oelewapperke
What palladium does
..."
1. It encrypts data (YOUR data)
2. It doesn't give you the key (you have to ask the CA (ie M$) "can I please have the key to
Now imagine what will hapen in the following scenario
1. You type in an email to a user with subject "Microsoft sucks"
2. The recipient's system asks microsoft for the decryption key "can I please get a key for the email 'Microsoft Sucks'" ?
They obviously won't do it the first few months, but this GIVES THEM THE OPTION TO REFUSE. Any data you trust to palladium, microsoft has the ONLY key to.
Oelewapperke