This might mean that when (not if, but when) we run out of oil
Actually, if that "fossile fules cause global warming"-theory is correct, then we have to stop using fossile fuels long before we run out, they are just not telling you that.
No, actually not. Choosing higher or lower from 12 numbers gives you a 11/12/2=45.8% chance of winning. It does'nt matter when it is decided if you win or not, as long as the probability is the same.
Imagine the two folowing cases: 1. You make a bet, then toss a coin to see who wins. 2. You toss a coin, shut it in between your wrist and palm(of the other hand), then make a bet. Same thing really.
Well you asked what it means for a house to pass in to the public domain. Certanly the person most capable of paying for the house should have it, anything else whould be communism.
The picture you paint with the two girls is incomplete. In fact there are four girls and two dads. Girl a has a living dad with a revenue generating asset, girl b had a dad with an asset, girl c has a dad but not one with an asset, girl d had a dad but not one with an asset, dad A is the dad of girl a, dad C is the dad of girl c.
Since you used the two girls to show that supposedly not inhereting assets from your parent is not fair i'm going to use fairness as a measure of the quality of the different inheritance systems.
A little intermezzo of philosofical masturbation:
For us to value fairness, we whould have to have a need for it. Paradoxally the only thing that needs fairness is the only thing that can be unfair, that thing is competition. And in turn, the goal of competing is achievment.
Now returning to our girls and dads, what system of inheretance whould be most fair to all? If we start by comparing girl b to girl a, then it certanly seems fair that girl b should inherit since the death of her dad was not a result of her competing strategy, and should not influence her achievment. But lets continue by comparing d to b. Both d and b have competed in exactly the same way, why should b get more compensation for the loss of her dad than d? To be fair, they should'nt. Comparing d to c, it seems fair that d be compensated so that her achievment whould be the same a c for the same reason of fairness. Now, in theory, b,c, and d, who have competed the same, have the same achievment. Which seems fair, but a, who also has competed the same, has much higher achievment. Why whould we have to accept this exeption to the rules? Simple, we forgot to count the achievment of all the people in the example, namely A and C.
A little intermezzo of math:
The fundamental axiom of any arithmetic/logic system is the axiom of eqality, wich simply states that x=x, in our example we will use a=a.
For our girl a, a=a means that she cannot uphold two different states, this means that if A has achieved, and wants to use that achievment to increase a's achievement, it has to be a fuction of both her competition and A's influence. Now we must accept that a is different from b,c,d, but only as long as there is something forceing it to be, if the will of A whould stop, we could make it fair again, and fairness being so important, we should.
So if he dies, he should no longer disturb fairness. QED
What does it mean to put property in the public domain, anyway? I understand it in the case of IP but not a house? What's that? You want to treat a house differently from IP? Why is that? IP already has an expiration date, unlike a house. Why make a further distinction?
The only practical thing to do in case of a house seems to be, to auction it off and split the money among the members of the public somehow. No, i see no reason to treat a house differently.(exept for the practical issues) IP may have an expiration date, but a house decays, making the difference very small.
Training in video games whould explain that guy who tossed a grenade into a friendly tent, he had obviously just saved, and just wanted to see if the game allowed damage from friendly fire.
why do you (i.e. the public domain) deserve to have it?
When you say things like that, have you really considered the alternatives?
When a person dies, his assets can be 1. destroyed, so thet they are given to noone. That is just stupid so we won't consider it further. 2. given to someone/s. Now if no one person deserver to get it, then we will obviusly give it to no one person. Since destroying the asset was stupid we must still give it to someone/s. Thankfully noone deserving to get something also means that noone deserves to get the asset more than enyone else, or rephrased: everyone has the same right to the asset. So the right thing is to devide it evenly among those who are left, ie. the "public domain" "deserves" it. QED
If you recall a previous story here on/. where algorithmic ineficiencies where used in a DoS attack, the solution to the problem was to use keyed hash functions, so that the attacker, could not find hash collisions. I think the solution to this problem might be similar. For example, if the path that the camera traveling through the benchmark was unknown to the author of the driver, then they could not make "optimisations" based on knowing what does'nt have to be rendered. So if everyone running the benchmark had their own secret camera path, thease type of cheats could not be pulled off. The problem obviously is that one run of the benchmark by one org will not yield exactly the same results as one run by another, but it seems like a smaller problem.
What if the DRM system's binaries themselves are encrypted
Well then the key/instructions to decrypt them whould have to be available. And if you encrypted them, then, same thing, ad absurdum. It won't be until the secure memmory/code of tcpa/palladium/ng.blah... rolls out on the market that it becomes difficult. I still stand by my first comment that the cryptographic primitives don't exist since i don't consider tcpa a new cryptographic primitive as much as i consider it hardware ad hoc, and as such will be subject to hardware hacks.
I was talking about the key used to decrypt the contents of the music file. At one time or another you must have access to it, to play the file. You can find this key by analysing what the kernel(+signed drivers) code does. Microsofts private key is irrelevant to this procedure. There is no need to break any cryptosystem, public key or otherwise.
The link you gave is a rant and probably doesn't describe the technology accuretly, but it seems it is by no means a cryptographic solution, defeating it has nothing to do with defeating cryptography, it seems to be a straight-forward engeneering task, of finding a key hidden in plain view in the code.(introducing errors seems like a place to start)
...or require authorization from the streaming computer to play - that way you'd only have to download it once. If you ony let 1 user play at a time it would be like a library.
When the other guy already has a copy opening the file on your computer in some "exlusive mode" doesn't help much.
Why not a file format that would stream but not download or require authorization from the streaming computer to play - that way you'd only have to download it once. If you ony let 1 user play at a time it would be like a library.
Because the cryptographic primitives needed to implement this securely don't exist?
Slashdot Mirror
Too easy.
$4600/kg or ~$10,000/lb
See, we keep telling you the metric system has benefits.
Actually, if that "fossile fules cause global warming"-theory is correct, then we have to stop using fossile fuels long before we run out, they are just not telling you that.
Not if the 8 minutes was measured with the watch you were carrying
The system was never intended to catch terrorists.
Whould you like some dead ferrets or cats with that order?
Any person with the right to private conversations perhaps.
No, actually not. Choosing higher or lower from 12 numbers gives you a 11/12/2=45.8% chance of winning. It does'nt matter when it is decided if you win or not, as long as the probability is the same.
Imagine the two folowing cases: 1. You make a bet, then toss a coin to see who wins. 2. You toss a coin, shut it in between your wrist and palm(of the other hand), then make a bet. Same thing really.
I doubt that most people will get that joke to it's full extent. :)
"Computer, open zipper."
"I cannot let you do that Dave."
Well the last article did teach us to reuse code.
But in the case of DRM, the one gaining safety is doing so at the expense of someone elses liberty.
Are you counting the first "liberation" of afghanistan, that put the country in the hands of the taliban?
Well you asked what it means for a house to pass in to the public domain. Certanly the person most capable of paying for the house should have it, anything else whould be communism.
Since you used the two girls to show that supposedly not inhereting assets from your parent is not fair i'm going to use fairness as a measure of the quality of the different inheritance systems.
A little intermezzo of philosofical masturbation:
For us to value fairness, we whould have to have a need for it. Paradoxally the only thing that needs fairness is the only thing that can be unfair, that thing is competition. And in turn, the goal of competing is achievment.
Now returning to our girls and dads, what system of inheretance whould be most fair to all? If we start by comparing girl b to girl a, then it certanly seems fair that girl b should inherit since the death of her dad was not a result of her competing strategy, and should not influence her achievment. But lets continue by comparing d to b. Both d and b have competed in exactly the same way, why should b get more compensation for the loss of her dad than d? To be fair, they should'nt. Comparing d to c, it seems fair that d be compensated so that her achievment whould be the same a c for the same reason of fairness. Now, in theory, b,c, and d, who have competed the same, have the same achievment. Which seems fair, but a, who also has competed the same, has much higher achievment. Why whould we have to accept this exeption to the rules? Simple, we forgot to count the achievment of all the people in the example, namely A and C.
A little intermezzo of math:
The fundamental axiom of any arithmetic/logic system is the axiom of eqality, wich simply states that x=x, in our example we will use a=a.
For our girl a, a=a means that she cannot uphold two different states, this means that if A has achieved, and wants to use that achievment to increase a's achievement, it has to be a fuction of both her competition and A's influence. Now we must accept that a is different from b,c,d, but only as long as there is something forceing it to be, if the will of A whould stop, we could make it fair again, and fairness being so important, we should.
So if he dies, he should no longer disturb fairness. QED
What does it mean to put property in the public domain, anyway? I understand it in the case of IP but not a house? What's that? You want to treat a house differently from IP? Why is that? IP already has an expiration date, unlike a house. Why make a further distinction?
The only practical thing to do in case of a house seems to be, to auction it off and split the money among the members of the public somehow. No, i see no reason to treat a house differently.(exept for the practical issues) IP may have an expiration date, but a house decays, making the difference very small.
Training in video games whould explain that guy who tossed a grenade into a friendly tent, he had obviously just saved, and just wanted to see if the game allowed damage from friendly fire.
When you say things like that, have you really considered the alternatives?
When a person dies, his assets can be 1. destroyed, so thet they are given to noone. That is just stupid so we won't consider it further. 2. given to someone/s. Now if no one person deserver to get it, then we will obviusly give it to no one person. Since destroying the asset was stupid we must still give it to someone/s. Thankfully noone deserving to get something also means that noone deserves to get the asset more than enyone else, or rephrased: everyone has the same right to the asset. So the right thing is to devide it evenly among those who are left, ie. the "public domain" "deserves" it. QED
If you recall a previous story here on /. where algorithmic ineficiencies where used in a DoS attack, the solution to the problem was to use keyed hash functions, so that the attacker, could not find hash collisions. I think the solution to this problem might be similar. For example, if the path that the camera traveling through the benchmark was unknown to the author of the driver, then they could not make "optimisations" based on knowing what does'nt have to be rendered. So if everyone running the benchmark had their own secret camera path, thease type of cheats could not be pulled off. The problem obviously is that one run of the benchmark by one org will not yield exactly the same results as one run by another, but it seems like a smaller problem.
Reminds me of when they invented heroin to cure morfinism.
The meaning of life is to convert energy from one form to another.
What if the DRM system's binaries themselves are encrypted
Well then the key/instructions to decrypt them whould have to be available. And if you encrypted them, then, same thing, ad absurdum. It won't be until the secure memmory/code of tcpa/palladium/ng.blah... rolls out on the market that it becomes difficult. I still stand by my first comment that the cryptographic primitives don't exist since i don't consider tcpa a new cryptographic primitive as much as i consider it hardware ad hoc, and as such will be subject to hardware hacks.
I was talking about the key used to decrypt the contents of the music file. At one time or another you must have access to it, to play the file. You can find this key by analysing what the kernel(+signed drivers) code does. Microsofts private key is irrelevant to this procedure. There is no need to break any cryptosystem, public key or otherwise.
The link you gave is a rant and probably doesn't describe the technology accuretly, but it seems it is by no means a cryptographic solution, defeating it has nothing to do with defeating cryptography, it seems to be a straight-forward engeneering task, of finding a key hidden in plain view in the code.(introducing errors seems like a place to start)
When the other guy already has a copy opening the file on your computer in some "exlusive mode" doesn't help much.
Because the cryptographic primitives needed to implement this securely don't exist?
How about making them work for people deleting spam?