Maybe, hopefully. I'm just don't trust the bit where you can run software signed by anyone, and not just by software providers that the content providers trust. I'll just wait and see before I believe that (even if they are saying it now). But if we do get this freedom, then I concede, yes, we should be able to run alternative media players for our old unsecured content.
Unless... (trying to connect the digital dots now): digital speakers, digital displays, and the new content already encrypted. Its not hard to image a future where the decryption happens at the device, and where new hardware will not play any old unsecured content, even old mp3s. And with old hardware not able to play new content (since its digitally secured, cracking it becomes a violation under DMCA), that could be two disjoint media worlds, old & new.
(and don't forget that YOU decide who is trusted and who is not)
Conversely, the software & content providers will decide if you are trusted, ie you are running a known trusted OS + known applications (media player). Importantly, they can then encrypt and send you content + key to decrypt. The content + key will be useless by itself unless running on your known trusted OS + Apps on a particular PC (since the hardware would have the private key part). Pay attention, this is not about you having control. Its about software & content providers having control. In particular:
most people will stick with the "insecure" content they are used to now
is not valid: content providers will not allow this, on a trusted system.
So how does Palladium (and TCPA) control this? I don't know that the all the details are available (maybe if you study the relavant patents?), but go read Ross Anderson's excellent TCPA & Palladium FAQ for some interesting security & economic perspectives.
Openness is a competitive tool, but now that the U.S. is clearly by itself as the worlds only superpower, its looking at errecting barriers to entry against competitors aspiring to catch up and surpass. Forget Europe here, think ahead a generation and look at India & China. We are talking about technology as a strategic asset, not just militarily but economically. And I think it won't be just a nanotech thing.
Amazing how this trend runs counter to movements (enabled by the internet!) for scientists to be more open and abondon traditional publishers for easily accessable electronic publishing!
Speaking of doomsday, an interesting show on PBS
last night (Nova: Death Star) speculated that the
power and frequency of mysterious gamma ray
bursts might explain why life isn't more
common in the universe. Significant areas of
entire galaxies can apparently get sterilized by
one of these gamma ray events! Read more at pbs.org...
No, never used macros. What I mostly remeber from lisp is car cdr cdr cdr... and leaning over my barf bag.
I don't deny the languages power. But I take issue with its usability. Prefer compact languages with readable syntax. Remind me, how large is the Common Lisp langage reference?
What I do admire about lisp (&Scheme) is the incredible performance implementers have achieved, comparable to traditional compiled languages like C. I didn't think that was possible with the dynamic nature of Lisp. That performance beats the hell out of python.
And no, the python indentation isn't a pain in the ass, its simply bliss. To each his own and all that.
Or, if you program in python, indentation is for both the compiler and the programmer!
I can buy the argument that the parens become a practical non-issue using decend text editors, and proper indentation. I just find it aesthetically unpleasant, and not a language feature on the plus side (at best at 0, and for newbies a negative).
Though I used lisp for some coursework and found that once I got my head thinking in the correct way I could be productive, I never achieved the affection for the language some people have (and I blame the syntax!) Surely there are functional languages that have the zen-like qualities lisper's seem to adore, but don't make me upchuck when I see the code written on a page?
The thing I personally like about (+ (* 2 y) x) rather than 2*y+x is that it simplifies my editing.
Abd then bragging about how easy it is to write editor macros to manipulate expressions? some of the examples ended in lines like:
(string < (first-name name1) (first-name name2)))))))
Crapping closing parens like that makes the language difficult to read without a text editor for matching. And it hurts my eyes;-).
The obvious implmenentation would be to sign into the *browser* somehow, and have it authenticate you to some Central Authority. Then when you visit any site the browser would exchange your identity with that site (which would probably again have to check it against the Central Authority). Does that sound right?
Given that microsoft conrols most of the browser marketshare, how does *anyone* have a legitimate shot at controlling single sign-on, other than MS?
So out of the millions of web pages out there, how many do you suppose are going to be updated to include the disabling metatags? Seems like it could become the norm on most pages, just through sheer inertia.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, as far as RCU goes, a kernel developer claims in this slashdot discussion post that RCU was contributed by IBM with an appropriate license.
You are reading to far into the control aspect.
Maybe, hopefully. I'm just don't trust the bit where you can run software signed by anyone, and not just by software providers that the content providers trust. I'll just wait and see before I believe that (even if they are saying it now). But if we do get this freedom, then I concede, yes, we should be able to run alternative media players for our old unsecured content.
Unless
where the decryption happens at the device, and where new hardware will not play any old unsecured content, even old mp3s. And with old hardware not able to play new content (since its digitally secured, cracking it becomes a violation under DMCA), that could be two disjoint media worlds, old & new.
your known trusted OS + Apps on a particular PC (since the hardware would have the private key part). Pay attention, this is not about you having control. Its about software & content providers having control. In particular: is not valid: content providers will not allow this, on a trusted system.
So how does Palladium (and TCPA) control this? I don't know that the all the details are available (maybe if you study the relavant patents?), but go read Ross Anderson's excellent TCPA & Palladium FAQ for some interesting security & economic perspectives.
Openness is a competitive tool, but now that the
U.S. is clearly by itself as the worlds only superpower,
its looking at errecting barriers to entry against
competitors aspiring to catch up and surpass. Forget
Europe here, think ahead a generation and look at
India & China. We are talking about technology as
a strategic asset, not just militarily but economically.
And I think it won't be just a nanotech thing.
Amazing how this trend runs counter to movements
(enabled by the internet!) for scientists to be
more open and abondon traditional publishers for
easily accessable electronic publishing!
Speaking of doomsday, an interesting show on PBS last night (Nova: Death Star) speculated that the power and frequency of mysterious gamma ray bursts might explain why life isn't more common in the universe. Significant areas of entire galaxies can apparently get sterilized by one of these gamma ray events! Read more at pbs.org ...
No, never used macros. What I mostly remeber from lisp is car cdr cdr cdr ... and leaning over my barf bag.
I don't deny the languages power. But I take issue with its usability. Prefer compact languages with readable syntax. Remind me, how large is the Common Lisp langage reference?
What I do admire about lisp (&Scheme) is the incredible performance implementers have achieved, comparable to traditional compiled languages like C. I didn't think that was possible with the dynamic nature of Lisp. That performance beats the hell out of python.
And no, the python indentation isn't a pain in the ass, its simply bliss. To each his own and all that.
Or, if you program in python, indentation is for both the compiler and the programmer!
I can buy the argument that the parens become a practical non-issue using decend text editors, and proper indentation. I just find it aesthetically unpleasant, and not a language feature on the plus side (at best at 0, and for newbies a negative).
Though I used lisp for some coursework and found that once I got my head thinking in the correct way I could be productive, I never achieved the affection for the language some people have (and I blame the syntax!) Surely there are functional languages that have the zen-like qualities lisper's seem to adore, but don't make me upchuck when I see the code written on a page?
The thing I personally like about (+ (* 2 y) x) rather than 2*y+x is that it simplifies my editing.
Abd then bragging about how easy it is to write editor macros to manipulate expressions? some of the examples ended in lines like:
(string < (first-name name1) (first-name name2)))))))
Crapping closing parens like that makes the language difficult to read without a text editor for matching. And it hurts my eyes
The obvious implmenentation would be to sign into the *browser* somehow, and have it authenticate you to some Central Authority. Then when you visit any site the browser would exchange your identity with that site (which would probably again have to check it against the Central Authority). Does that sound right?
Given that microsoft conrols most of the browser marketshare, how does *anyone* have a legitimate shot at controlling single sign-on, other than MS?
So out of the millions of web pages out there, how many do you suppose are going to be updated to include the disabling metatags? Seems like it could become the norm on most pages, just through sheer inertia.