It becomes a lot of information to keep track of, though. And if you slip up even once and reveal any sort of correlation between the different identities, your security is (theoretically) breached.
Recently there was a band that included a minute of silence on their CD, they have now been sued by Cage's publisher for unauthorized sampling. I kid you not.
Wow, really? Gee, it's not like it was posted on/. or anything. And you neglect to mention that the recording artist in question actually credited Cage as the composer but failed to provide any royalties. It was just asking for it.
Hmmm, I dunno, I dunno. Some of these people are really impressive, and it is good to see recognition for excellence vastly different fields. But I have to wonder whether they're being so careful to avoid focusing too much on traditional targets for awards (e.g. scientists) and finding people like the bead lady instead. Now, the world needs its bead ladies, no doubt. But as someone pointed out, when a foundation has given out more awards for dance than for medicine, you've got to wonder whether they're really accomplishing the most social worth with their power. What I'm getting at is that there seems to be a bit of self-congratulatory, "look how enlightened we are for recognizing the bead ladies of the world"-ness going on.
Not to pick on the bead lady... that's kind of cool, actually. But you see my point, I hope.
That's an excuse for belief, not a reason. And it's not a very good one -- you could use it to justify any belief, no matter how foolish. Axiomatic systems are not defined arbitrarily -- axioms are carefully chosen because they seem inevitable based on our experience, and they significantly contribute to the system's effectiveness in describing its domain. The God Axiom does no such thing -- it's not obvious, it's not compelling, and it's not helpful.
I assume there is a reasonable amount of anti-fuel cell propaganda out there spread by petroleum interests and the like. I'm curious to see what the FUD has to say -- should be good for a laugh, anyway. Anyone seen any good FUD?
I see your point, but I can't agree with your conclusions. The category of actions which constitute "gathering evidence" is just far too broad and difficult to classify, and there are too many circumstances when it makes plenty of sense for a private individual to seek out evidence on their own. For example, violent crime is a criminal matter, but you wouldn't argue that it should be illegal for the victim of such a crime (or his or her agent) to seek out evidence in order to help bring the perpetrator to justice. As long as criminal cases involve private interests, there will be many cases where it makes sense for private individuals to perform their own investigations.
I do agree with your second point, though. I hadn't really considered the question of whether copyright infringement was civil or criminal before, but if it's as you describe (and I guess it is, now that I think about it) then that's quite an absurd state of affairs. But what isn't, in this particular legal realm?
Wow... how many of those does it take to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool? What about a football field? If you lined them up end to end, how many times would they wrap around the equator, or stretch from Earth to the sun?
Okay, this is a great accomplishment. I am studying at KTH (Sweden's Royal Institute of Technology) where the symposium took place -- actually, I talked to a guy yesterday right after he came out of it.
Anyway, it's cool but I just want to run some numbers before we get too impressed. They say it'll be 5 years before this is practical, and it's a tenfold gain in density. Now, what's the expected gain in density over the same period in a Moore's Law-type expectation?
My trusty desktop calculator (a.k.a. Python) tells me that 2^(5/1.5) is 10.0793683992. Pretty damn close. So yay, we're still on track.
I wish the article gave more details, though. The guy I talked to had a much better description of how this thing works.
Hey, genius, the situation's a bit more complex than that (surprise!). Developing secure applications takes TIME. Developers only have so much time, and they receive instructions on how to spend it. Nobody *wants* to release an insecure product, but it can be hard to fight the good fight when you're inside the machine and the gears are grinding in the opposite direction.
And let's not forget testers, project managers, management, etc. etc. etc. Plenty of blame to go around.
Okay, maybe the guy's being straight. Hey, MS is populated by human beings with some sense of ethics for the most part (excluding the legal and marketing departments, of course).
Or maybe it's FUD to push the necessity of Palladium. This is strongly hinted at by the way he whines "it never ends," as if any efforts to secure their products are pointless because hackers are so dang clever.
Either way, this shouldn't sway anybody into the Palladium camp. MS is admitting that they have done jack squat for security, in spite of having told many, many lies to the contrary. And now they expect people to buy into their new technology for a "trusted platform?" Trust isn't bought, folks, it's earned.
Yes, there will always be hackers (crackers, whatever, use context people). But you can't argue a complex situation (computer security) in black and white terms. One security breach a month is better than one a day. Defeatism in the face of adversity isn't exactly the lauded "Microsoft spirit."
I'm glad to see this news. Ulterior motives or not, the truth is being spoken. But if they think they're gaining anything by scaring people, they're dead wrong. So let's just hope they're simply being honest. Hey, a guy can dream.
I've been wondering for some time why, with all the engineering marvels available to us, we still have such tangled, clunky, space-wasting internals in our computers. Look inside your computer: sure, there's a lot of stuff in there, but by volume it's mostly empty space. Don't believe me? I invite you to empirically test it with Archimedes' principle.
The problem, as I see it, is that a combination of needing to be backwards-compatible, and failing to reevaluate gestalt hardware design, has left us with boxes that don't look fundamentally different on the inside than they did 15 years ago.
Here's what I envision: a physical architecture in which every component is an enclosed, rectilinear module which snaps in and out as easily as a PCMCIA card. No need to open up the case to do an upgrade. No need to fuss with screws and fitting cards into slots. I mean, honestly, screws? We can do better than this, folks!
I think this approach would work. I mean, is there any good reason why cards have to slot in perpendicular to the motherboard? Through the magic of electricity and a miraculous substance called copper, we could easily redirect the power and data paths to component bays as described above.
Hardware should be modular, and that implies loose coupling. All that's really necessary is to connect the components with the appropriate sort of conductive material. That's a really loose constraint, and yet every computer that comes off the line has the same pain-in-the-ass structure to it.
The real trick would be a pill that lets you change your skin to a more outlandish color than "sorta brownish." Certain subcultures woul just eat this up. I can imagine a warehouse full of ravers with purple, green, fluorescent, etc. skin.
Slashdot Mirror
At least, I hope it was a bad pun rather than a literal question...
It becomes a lot of information to keep track of, though. And if you slip up even once and reveal any sort of correlation between the different identities, your security is (theoretically) breached.
Close. It's actually "fishies."
Wow, really? Gee, it's not like it was posted on /. or anything. And you neglect to mention that the recording artist in question actually credited Cage as the composer but failed to provide any royalties. It was just asking for it.
Yeah, and as a resident of Seattle I resent the implication that Microsoft lives here. They're in Redmond.
Just to nitpick, the original punchline was approximately "Whoa, I'm in over my head."
Not to pick on the bead lady... that's kind of cool, actually. But you see my point, I hope.
So... are you saying you want... help? Being, uh, recognized?
I would just like to add that Harley Quinn is my favorite submissive hottie ever, fictional or otherwise.
That's an excuse for belief, not a reason. And it's not a very good one -- you could use it to justify any belief, no matter how foolish. Axiomatic systems are not defined arbitrarily -- axioms are carefully chosen because they seem inevitable based on our experience, and they significantly contribute to the system's effectiveness in describing its domain. The God Axiom does no such thing -- it's not obvious, it's not compelling, and it's not helpful.
I assume there is a reasonable amount of anti-fuel cell propaganda out there spread by petroleum interests and the like. I'm curious to see what the FUD has to say -- should be good for a laugh, anyway. Anyone seen any good FUD?
I do agree with your second point, though. I hadn't really considered the question of whether copyright infringement was civil or criminal before, but if it's as you describe (and I guess it is, now that I think about it) then that's quite an absurd state of affairs. But what isn't, in this particular legal realm?
Kinda depends what you mean by "we" and "elected," but yeah.
Well, we can just assume he's a uniform sphere of water...
Wow... how many of those does it take to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool? What about a football field? If you lined them up end to end, how many times would they wrap around the equator, or stretch from Earth to the sun?
If the end is the same, I'd just as soon have the money come out of the *AAs' pockets than the tax coffers.
God bless America(tm)...
Anyway, it's cool but I just want to run some numbers before we get too impressed. They say it'll be 5 years before this is practical, and it's a tenfold gain in density. Now, what's the expected gain in density over the same period in a Moore's Law-type expectation?
My trusty desktop calculator (a.k.a. Python) tells me that 2^(5/1.5) is 10.0793683992. Pretty damn close. So yay, we're still on track.
I wish the article gave more details, though. The guy I talked to had a much better description of how this thing works.
999 to go...
And let's not forget testers, project managers, management, etc. etc. etc. Plenty of blame to go around.
Or maybe it's FUD to push the necessity of Palladium. This is strongly hinted at by the way he whines "it never ends," as if any efforts to secure their products are pointless because hackers are so dang clever.
Either way, this shouldn't sway anybody into the Palladium camp. MS is admitting that they have done jack squat for security, in spite of having told many, many lies to the contrary. And now they expect people to buy into their new technology for a "trusted platform?" Trust isn't bought, folks, it's earned.
Yes, there will always be hackers (crackers, whatever, use context people). But you can't argue a complex situation (computer security) in black and white terms. One security breach a month is better than one a day. Defeatism in the face of adversity isn't exactly the lauded "Microsoft spirit."
I'm glad to see this news. Ulterior motives or not, the truth is being spoken. But if they think they're gaining anything by scaring people, they're dead wrong. So let's just hope they're simply being honest. Hey, a guy can dream.
Try changing the password.
The problem, as I see it, is that a combination of needing to be backwards-compatible, and failing to reevaluate gestalt hardware design, has left us with boxes that don't look fundamentally different on the inside than they did 15 years ago.
Here's what I envision: a physical architecture in which every component is an enclosed, rectilinear module which snaps in and out as easily as a PCMCIA card. No need to open up the case to do an upgrade. No need to fuss with screws and fitting cards into slots. I mean, honestly, screws? We can do better than this, folks!
I think this approach would work. I mean, is there any good reason why cards have to slot in perpendicular to the motherboard? Through the magic of electricity and a miraculous substance called copper, we could easily redirect the power and data paths to component bays as described above.
Hardware should be modular, and that implies loose coupling. All that's really necessary is to connect the components with the appropriate sort of conductive material. That's a really loose constraint, and yet every computer that comes off the line has the same pain-in-the-ass structure to it.
Well?
The real trick would be a pill that lets you change your skin to a more outlandish color than "sorta brownish." Certain subcultures woul just eat this up. I can imagine a warehouse full of ravers with purple, green, fluorescent, etc. skin.
Yeah. That guy owes me royalties for my "method for anthropomorphizing software entities and attributing quotes of their authors to said entities."