I must know all kinds of people who would love a platform to put all kinds of original video content out there. There's plenty of Creative Commons stuff - Why don't they just let people put up their own stuff?
Can't have the little people thinking they can be a TV station, I guess.
I tend to think this theory of autonomous AI - the machine as individual - is naive. It's anthropomorphization; the error that machines will necessarily be like us.
The usefulness of tomorrow's technology - AI or robotics included - will be magnified by connectivity. Technology will, of legal necessity, be an extension of us, and will seldom be so independent of us that it will want anything we don't. They will connect with each other, with us, and through them, we will connect with one another.
I think this is the first plausible criterion for AI I've seen outside the Turing test (not that I've been looking too hard).
My question is, now that we have the test, what do we use it for? What difference would it make whether a computational system "has AI"? Does it have legal implications? How differently should it be treated, and why? Is it just a PR buzzword?
Passing the Turing test has (almost too obvious) consequences, not because its a test for intelligence, but a test for human likeness, extrapolated from the (at times dubious) assumption that humans are intelligent. Your considerably more technical criterion does not carry this grave subtext, so it's necessary to explain it.
How does a "notice and notice" regime work? How will it help to curb the misuse of the Internet for infringing purposes?
Under the proposed "notice and notice" regime, an ISP will be required to forward any notice it receives from a copyright owner to a subscriber who is alleged to be engaging in infringing activities on-line. The ISP will also be required to retain, for a set period of time, information sufficient to identify the subscriber in question. Through this regime, rights holders will have a mechanism for alerting Internet users that their infringing activities have been detected. In the event that the impugned activities lead to litigation, the record-keeping requirement will better enable identification of the parties alleged to be involved.
So, as I understand it, ISPs are now required to be able identify their customers. Wouldn't preclude free, anonymous wireless hotspots, wouldn't it? Anonymity by paying in cash for dialup would go right out the window, too.
At least in a "notice and takedown" system, it's legal to offer anonymous Internet access...
'IE is part of the Windows Operating System so that parts of the OS and other applications can rely on the functionality and APIs being present. To be clear there are no Operating System APIs that IE uses that are not documented on MSDN as part of the platform SDK and available to other browsers and any other software that runs on Windows..'...and this is relevant to Baker's security claims how?
The point isn't the APIs that connect the IE to Windows - it's the APIs that connect orther applications to IE. Because Windows apps can always depend on the IE APIs being present, they are more likely to tempt developers into using them instead of something more secure that they would have to build or install themselves.
What if the alternative is not being able to download legally at all?
I wish!
I don't know if you've been watching, but there's plenty of DRM-free content out there. I could think of many worse fates than being unable to download Friends. Disabling commercialized consumer pop culture is doing society a favor.
If commercial content gave up and disappeared entirely from the Net, I would be quite satisfied. That would would leave an attention vacuum that could be better filled by saner artists and producers who won't miss DRM.
Alas, there is too much valuable mindshare to be had for commerical interests to risk giving up.
I must admit, I was sorely tempted by the Mac Mini. It was a good price point, a good performer (for the desktop apps I need), and there appeared to be some support from Linux distros (Debian/Ubuntu, etc).
Then I realized it had an ATI video chipset. I don't think I would enjoy fighting with a company that doesn't like to give up driver sources, and instead only distributes binary drivers that work with "approved" kernels (Please correct me, as I'm behind the times on this). Never mind the pain that getting PPC Linux drivers might be.
Then I realized I couldn't get it without buying Mac OS X. Why the hell would I want to substitute a Microsoft tax for a Macintosh tax?
After seeing what Apple won't do for the iPod (like allow for recording that the hardware is capable of), I don't trust their equipment either. I'll stick with the open commodity stuff, thanks.
Put simply, I can't trust an audio player that doesn't play Ogg Vorbis.
The TPMs that exist today do enable such a lock-down to occur, but they, by themselves, do not necessitate it.
The TPM itself is designed to be closed by the "owner" of the device, who can determine which keys sofware will need to be signed with in order to allow them to run. If you own your machine - in both the hardware and the TCG sense - you can simply add your own key to the approved keys list, then use that key to sign any software you like, whether of your own design, or those of others. It could be used, for example, to insure you're running all-Free Software as easily as all-Microsoft software.
The problem comes when hardware vendors start taking "ownership" of your devices before shipping them to consumers. In that case, only THEY can choose the software keys that are needed to sign any software you run. Obviously, you won't have any control of those policies. The TPM specs don't necessitate this move by manufacturers - they just enable it.
The ability to take ownership of devices away from consumers is not necessitated by a TPM (and a TPM allows a great many less-sinister and useful applications), but the TPM *is* necessary in order to take that ownership. *That* is the sticky issue.
The business model may die, but the news is the news is the news. News was news before news was business. News will still be news after news stops being business.
This is the attention economy - News attracts attention, therefore news will always have value so long as attention is scarcer than information (ie, news). Anything else is just quibbling over the price.
Come now, let's have some consistency, shall we? Violating the terms of the GPL is not "stealing" any more than copyright infringment. It's illegal, sure, but it's not theft.
How company can make money, if its products are available for free?
Easy. Don't sell products.
"How will programmers get paid?"
"Do you have a programming job?"
"Yes. I work for a closed-source software vendor."
"How are you paid?"
"By the hour/salary."
"Not by the project? So you're providing a service?"
"Yes."
"Would a customer buy a piece of software if it didn't do anything?"
"No."
"So the closed source model turns your service into a product, so that it can be turned back into a service when the user installs it. If customers are interested in services through software, why bother with products?"
Product-ification is an inefficiency in the marketplace. Competition is discovering this.
Ask Bruce Perens. Only about 30% of software is shrink wrapped, and the percentage is shrinking.
The "immorality" in question here is not profit - it's monopoly. There are plenty of laws on the books that attest to this view, despite the fact that they haven't been enforced very well lately.
I agree. If BSD folks were going to be disappointed about Apple leveraging their work without much reciprocity, they would have chosen a different license - like Linux did.
The "open source community", just like the Slashdot community, are not one voice.
Using unionfs with a hard disk over the read-only CD filesystem, I'm thinking it would be possible to initiate an "install" process in the background, utilizing idle time, that wouldn't interfere with regular usage of the system.
The process would go something like this: Boot the system from the CD, check out the functionality. If you like it, click a program that says "Install". It asks you to select the harddrive where you you'd like to store the system (perhaps even to an ntfs partition?). The next time your system idles, the screen saver comes on. Then, in the background, the installer begins copying files from the read-only cd image to the hd overlay layer on the fly. *None of the applications even notice*, and it can be interrupted at anytime if you come back to use your system before the install is complete. Once it's done, it dings, and ejects the CD.
With Linux, I've enjoyed instlling apps without rebooting, but I'm now looking forward to installing an OPERATING SYSTEM without rebooting.
Not a bad solution to the problem with the wardriving competition a couple years ago. In their race to record the most APs, contestants were told they needed to stay West of a certain Las Vegas street - so some smartass went all the way to LA.
Isn't the entire point of filing for a patent an exchange of exclusive use rights for the publication of the invention?...or is it just about rewarding innovation by granting secret monopolies, now?
patches and drivers both fit under the label of "persistent data". They're not huge, so you can put them onto the hard drive and apply the changes with a unionfs-style overlay fs technique, or less attractively, apply them at runtime, or, worst case, download and apply them at run time.
There's also no reason (anymore) that you can't use the hard drive that's right in front of you, even if it's desirable to install a game to disk for better perfomance. Hell, I use "poor man's" hdd installs for all the LiveCDs I boot, anyway.
As for your point about rebooting, I suppose you're right, if you're rebooting Windows. I hear that does take a while.
if and when Linux drivers and low-level open source graphics libraries surpass the kind of maturity and performance DirectX has had, you'll start seeing the shift.
Games have an intersting advantage over desktop applications: there is minimal integrationinvolved, due to the fact that they are highly immersive expreiences. They don't have to talk to you web browser, GUI toolkits, system tray, etc. Each game essentially includes its own GUI.
Hmmm. While we're at it, why shouldn't it include its own OS, as well? Oh, hey, look! there's a perfectly usable OS over here! Why don't we just bolt it onto the bottom of the stack on the CD, and make it a bootable Live CD? Since you're leaving the desktop to play the game anyway, why not leverage having control of the entire OS layer for making your game run better? Use the hard drive for caching persistent state data, and skip the whole painful installation process.
Once having that kind of low-level control over the OS proves a significant technical advantage for games, you'll start to see more games for Linux. In fact, you might see more Linux-only games, because Windows usees can just boot into the game without having to disturb their existing Windows drives to install Linux at all.
Microsoft would probably have to respond by working out a better LiveCD infrastructure, ala Bart's PE, but with support for DirectX. Again, MS is way behind with this functionality. Bart's PE is pretty much limited to rescue & diagnostics apps, whereas Linux LiveCD's are running the whole desktop, and will soon be the primary way dekstop Linux is run, with projects like Unionfs overcoming the data persistence limitations of read-only filesystems.
Of course, if Microsoft makes Windows able to be run from Live CDs, that just means there won't be any reason not to install Linux.;) Everybody wins!
Slashdot Mirror
What happens to Skype when The Aussies sue Sharman into oblivion?
How long before he's replaced entirely by his own program to cut down on staff costs?
Moreover how long before students invent programs to write papers this program will give perfect grades to?
I must know all kinds of people who would love a platform to put all kinds of original video content out there. There's plenty of Creative Commons stuff - Why don't they just let people put up their own stuff?
Can't have the little people thinking they can be a TV station, I guess.
I disagree.
I tend to think this theory of autonomous AI - the machine as individual - is naive. It's anthropomorphization; the error that machines will necessarily be like us.
The usefulness of tomorrow's technology - AI or robotics included - will be magnified by connectivity. Technology will, of legal necessity, be an extension of us, and will seldom be so independent of us that it will want anything we don't. They will connect with each other, with us, and through them, we will connect with one another.
I think this is the first plausible criterion for AI I've seen outside the Turing test (not that I've been looking too hard).
My question is, now that we have the test, what do we use it for? What difference would it make whether a computational system "has AI"? Does it have legal implications? How differently should it be treated, and why? Is it just a PR buzzword?
Passing the Turing test has (almost too obvious) consequences, not because its a test for intelligence, but a test for human likeness, extrapolated from the (at times dubious) assumption that humans are intelligent. Your considerably more technical criterion does not carry this grave subtext, so it's necessary to explain it.
From the FAQ:
How does a "notice and notice" regime work? How will it help to curb the misuse of the Internet for infringing purposes?
Under the proposed "notice and notice" regime, an ISP will be required to forward any notice it receives from a copyright owner to a subscriber who is alleged to be engaging in infringing activities on-line. The ISP will also be required to retain, for a set period of time, information sufficient to identify the subscriber in question. Through this regime, rights holders will have a mechanism for alerting Internet users that their infringing activities have been detected. In the event that the impugned activities lead to litigation, the record-keeping requirement will better enable identification of the parties alleged to be involved.
So, as I understand it, ISPs are now required to be able identify their customers. Wouldn't preclude free, anonymous wireless hotspots, wouldn't it? Anonymity by paying in cash for dialup would go right out the window, too.
At least in a "notice and takedown" system, it's legal to offer anonymous Internet access...
'IE is part of the Windows Operating System so that parts of the OS and other applications can rely on the functionality and APIs being present. To be clear there are no Operating System APIs that IE uses that are not documented on MSDN as part of the platform SDK and available to other browsers and any other software that runs on Windows..' ...and this is relevant to Baker's security claims how?
The point isn't the APIs that connect the IE to Windows - it's the APIs that connect orther applications to IE. Because Windows apps can always depend on the IE APIs being present, they are more likely to tempt developers into using them instead of something more secure that they would have to build or install themselves.
What if the alternative is not being able to download legally at all?
I wish!
I don't know if you've been watching, but there's plenty of DRM-free content out there. I could think of many worse fates than being unable to download Friends. Disabling commercialized consumer pop culture is doing society a favor.
If commercial content gave up and disappeared entirely from the Net, I would be quite satisfied. That would would leave an attention vacuum that could be better filled by saner artists and producers who won't miss DRM.
Alas, there is too much valuable mindshare to be had for commerical interests to risk giving up.
I must admit, I was sorely tempted by the Mac Mini. It was a good price point, a good performer (for the desktop apps I need), and there appeared to be some support from Linux distros (Debian/Ubuntu, etc).
Then I realized it had an ATI video chipset. I don't think I would enjoy fighting with a company that doesn't like to give up driver sources, and instead only distributes binary drivers that work with "approved" kernels (Please correct me, as I'm behind the times on this). Never mind the pain that getting PPC Linux drivers might be.
Then I realized I couldn't get it without buying Mac OS X. Why the hell would I want to substitute a Microsoft tax for a Macintosh tax?
After seeing what Apple won't do for the iPod (like allow for recording that the hardware is capable of), I don't trust their equipment either. I'll stick with the open commodity stuff, thanks.
Put simply, I can't trust an audio player that doesn't play Ogg Vorbis.
Not quite.
The TPMs that exist today do enable such a lock-down to occur, but they, by themselves, do not necessitate it.
The TPM itself is designed to be closed by the "owner" of the device, who can determine which keys sofware will need to be signed with in order to allow them to run. If you own your machine - in both the hardware and the TCG sense - you can simply add your own key to the approved keys list, then use that key to sign any software you like, whether of your own design, or those of others. It could be used, for example, to insure you're running all-Free Software as easily as all-Microsoft software.
The problem comes when hardware vendors start taking "ownership" of your devices before shipping them to consumers. In that case, only THEY can choose the software keys that are needed to sign any software you run. Obviously, you won't have any control of those policies.
The TPM specs don't necessitate this move by manufacturers - they just enable it.
The ability to take ownership of devices away from consumers is not necessitated by a TPM (and a TPM allows a great many less-sinister and useful applications), but the TPM *is* necessary in order to take that ownership. *That* is the sticky issue.
So DIE, business model! DIE!
The business model may die, but the news is the news is the news. News was news before news was business. News will still be news after news stops being business.
This is the attention economy - News attracts attention, therefore news will always have value so long as attention is scarcer than information (ie, news). Anything else is just quibbling over the price.
Come now, let's have some consistency, shall we? Violating the terms of the GPL is not "stealing" any more than copyright infringment. It's illegal, sure, but it's not theft.
How company can make money, if its products are available for free?
Easy. Don't sell products.
"How will programmers get paid?"
"Do you have a programming job?"
"Yes. I work for a closed-source software vendor."
"How are you paid?"
"By the hour/salary."
"Not by the project? So you're providing a service?"
"Yes."
"Would a customer buy a piece of software if it didn't do anything?"
"No."
"So the closed source model turns your service into a product, so that it can be turned back into a service when the user installs it. If customers are interested in services through software, why bother with products?"
Product-ification is an inefficiency in the marketplace. Competition is discovering this.
Ask Bruce Perens. Only about 30% of software is shrink wrapped, and the percentage is shrinking.
The "immorality" in question here is not profit - it's monopoly. There are plenty of laws on the books that attest to this view, despite the fact that they haven't been enforced very well lately.
I agree. If BSD folks were going to be disappointed about Apple leveraging their work without much reciprocity, they would have chosen a different license - like Linux did.
The "open source community", just like the Slashdot community, are not one voice.
Excellent!
Now if only the fs changes outside the home dir could be stored without mounting the persitent home...
English version of the article
English version of the article
Using unionfs with a hard disk over the read-only CD filesystem, I'm thinking it would be possible to initiate an "install" process in the background, utilizing idle time, that wouldn't interfere with regular usage of the system.
The process would go something like this: Boot the system from the CD, check out the functionality. If you like it, click a program that says "Install". It asks you to select the harddrive where you you'd like to store the system (perhaps even to an ntfs partition?). The next time your system idles, the screen saver comes on. Then, in the background, the installer begins copying files from the read-only cd image to the hd overlay layer on the fly. *None of the applications even notice*, and it can be interrupted at anytime if you come back to use your system before the install is complete. Once it's done, it dings, and ejects the CD.
With Linux, I've enjoyed instlling apps without rebooting, but I'm now looking forward to installing an OPERATING SYSTEM without rebooting.
That is pretty sexy.
Not a bad solution to the problem with the wardriving competition a couple years ago. In their race to record the most APs, contestants were told they needed to stay West of a certain Las Vegas street - so some smartass went all the way to LA.
;p
Needless to say, he won.
Stop watching television.
My favorite button on the remote control is the big red one in the corner. It's marked "power" for a reason, ya know.
I did this years ago, and my life is enormously enriched because of it. I'm happy to say I'm once again shocked by what appears on TV.
Isn't the entire point of filing for a patent an exchange of exclusive use rights for the publication of the invention? ...or is it just about rewarding innovation by granting secret monopolies, now?
MS Antispyware, Internet Explorere, SP2, et al, are not "free".
I have to buy Windows to use them.
So, in effect, all of these "free" programs are actually the most expensive applications in their class.
Why would I pay a hundred bucks or more for a web browser?
patches and drivers both fit under the label of "persistent data". They're not huge, so you can put them onto the hard drive and apply the changes with a unionfs-style overlay fs technique, or less attractively, apply them at runtime, or, worst case, download and apply them at run time.
There's also no reason (anymore) that you can't use the hard drive that's right in front of you, even if it's desirable to install a game to disk for better perfomance. Hell, I use "poor man's" hdd installs for all the LiveCDs I boot, anyway.
As for your point about rebooting, I suppose you're right, if you're rebooting Windows. I hear that does take a while.
if and when Linux drivers and low-level open source graphics libraries surpass the kind of maturity and performance DirectX has had, you'll start seeing the shift.
;) Everybody wins!
Games have an intersting advantage over desktop applications: there is minimal integrationinvolved, due to the fact that they are highly immersive expreiences. They don't have to talk to you web browser, GUI toolkits, system tray, etc. Each game essentially includes its own GUI.
Hmmm. While we're at it, why shouldn't it include its own OS, as well? Oh, hey, look! there's a perfectly usable OS over here! Why don't we just bolt it onto the bottom of the stack on the CD, and make it a bootable Live CD? Since you're leaving the desktop to play the game anyway, why not leverage having control of the entire OS layer for making your game run better? Use the hard drive for caching persistent state data, and skip the whole painful installation process.
Once having that kind of low-level control over the OS proves a significant technical advantage for games, you'll start to see more games for Linux. In fact, you might see more Linux-only games, because Windows usees can just boot into the game without having to disturb their existing Windows drives to install Linux at all.
Microsoft would probably have to respond by working out a better LiveCD infrastructure, ala Bart's PE, but with support for DirectX. Again, MS is way behind with this functionality. Bart's PE is pretty much limited to rescue & diagnostics apps, whereas Linux LiveCD's are running the whole desktop, and will soon be the primary way dekstop Linux is run, with projects like Unionfs overcoming the data persistence limitations of read-only filesystems.
Of course, if Microsoft makes Windows able to be run from Live CDs, that just means there won't be any reason not to install Linux.