The biggest issue I see is that CO2 is a byproduct of simply being alive, so you will get into the mess of "do you tax all CO2 emissions, or only those made by machines? What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard? What about campfires?"
Well, lets see.
The European cap and trade system exempts anyone who's producing less than 25,000 tons of CO2 per year. I converted 25,000 tons of CO2 into the volume of that CO2, and then looked up figures for the size of the (three giant buildings) of the US Library of congress and did a little estimating, and came up with the result that 25,000 tons of CO2 is around 22,000 times the volume of the Library of Congress.
So if you're emitting less than 22,000 LOCs of CO2 per year then you don't get taxed. I'd say it's safe to assume that "breathing" is going to fall somewhat below that threshold. "What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard?" Well I sure as hell wouldn't want to be his next door neighbor if his "little brush fire" is spewing out more than two and a half LOCs of CO2 per hour. I kinda consider it a plus if the air actually contains enough oxygen to.... you know.... actually sustain life in my living room.
The green movement is basically a watermelon, enviro green on the outside and red communist inside.
And don't forget the Seeds Of Homosexuality inside!
Remember kids, Jesus hates commies, and he hates gays, and he hates the environment, ummmm and he hates watermelons. Jesus especially hates the Gay Seeds of Homosexuality in watermelons.
Too much science supports the conclusion that CO2 insulates and raises temperature of an atmosphere to ignore.
You're wrong. If one is motivated enough and cultivates the proper mindset, it is possible to reach a high enough level of ignore-ance to overcome any given quantity of science, evidence, and logic.
Well, as a point of comparison: Out of about 250,000 degreed scientists across all of the earth and life sciences, there are about 700 who think that evolution-denialist "Creation Science" has any legitimacy.
Estimating the number of Moon Landing Denialists is left as an exercise for the reader.
Either the photos will come back showing no hardware on the moon and we'll finally have proof it never happened, or they will release photos showing landing hardware on the moon and we'll finally have proof of an on going NASA conspiracy to manufacture a moon landing fraud.
Yes, one way or the other we will finally have proof.
You know, I used to laugh at the term "murder simulator" when it was bandied about by knee-jerk opponents of video violence some years ago. Preposterous, I said: video is video -- easily distinguishable from reality, and reasonable people know the difference between fantasy and reality. That was in the GunsmokeNight Of The Living Dead, where the violence seemed cartoonish in black&white. And I love those movies and TV shows
Then I watched The Adventures Of Robin Hood. The blood was in color, and it was red. For the first time, hell started to freeze over, and I found myself beginning to understand the critics' point of view. As videos inched ever closer to absolute photorealism (which some industry professionals believe to be no more than 10-15 years away), violent video critics' arguments are slowly beginning to look more sane. And yes, you're reading this from a life-long video fan who staunchly opposes institutional artistic censorship.
But censorship is peanuts compared to the conundrums we'll be facing in the future with our favorite hobby. Once our video of the real world (still called, somewhat quaintly, "movies and television") begin to effectively duplicate reality, the issue of video violence won't be a matter of artistic merit or censorship anymore. It will quickly become a matter of morality, ethics, and law.
The coming storm is inevitable: turn one way, and you'll see ever-more realistic portrayals of graphic, gratuitous human violence in movies and television like The Adventures Of Robin Hood, Pearl harbor, and Fox Television's 24. Then turn the other and observe the exponential explosion of recording media and High Definition video rendering potential driven by technology. Put two and two together, and you've got quite a mess brewing.
Welcome to the Slippery Slope
Within the next 10-20 years, your virtual victims in Survivor, Gaza Strip could look, sound, and behave exactly like a real human would if you stabbed him in the neck or shot him in the gut. There'd be plenty of blood, screaming, and carnage to go around. You could watch in High Definition COlor as they bleed to death in agony.
The funny thing is -- and I'm just guessing -- you wouldn't want to do that in real life to a real human, so why would you want to watch in video? The violent scenario above seems silly now, but the stunningly realistic, color-era violent video we watch today would have seemed unthinkably graphic just fifteen years ago.
At the moment, we rationalize our simulated violence with statements like: "It's just a movie, it's just television. It's not real. The people don't suffer." All this is true (at the moment); but as the experience of virtual murder becomes ever more realistic, I believe that we as watchers will begin to suffer emotionally every time we view realistic suffering to any virtual person, just as if we caused suffering to real living creatures.
With each act of violence, a piece of us grows cold, calloused, and uncaring towards the well being of others. Repeat that, and we become slowly desensitized to pain and suffering.
As movie and TC fans, we've already begun desensitizing ourselves to simulated murder, or else we wouldn't be able to watch the violent video we have now. Video featuring endless violence is nearly as old as video movies themselves, with heavyweight title prizefight between Jim Jeffries and Tom Sharkey (1899) probably being the most influential. Back in 1998, Saving Private Ryan was the most graphically realistic simulation of murder you could find in video. It shocked people (including the author) at first.
But as the body count racked up, each death became easier to watch until we no longer had a second thought about it. The same desensitizing effect stretches back to every violent video that pushed the limits of realism -- all the way back the early horror flick The Texas Chain Saw Massacre , where a psycho mowed down people "gremlins" with a chain s
It is the primary space of social of social interaction for pre-technological cultures which lack the mental or physical capability to interact in cyberspace. Meatspace is the broad collection of places where pieces of meat physically move, physically gather, and communicate by the physical emission of vocal grunts resembling a primitive form of text.
the Chinese as a wildly repressive, fascistic regime
Actually I used the word "authoritarian", although I can see how you interpreted my post as more venomous than I had intended, from the way I used the examples of Nazis and Stalin to make my point about the bi-polar relationship between authoritarianism and religion. I do consider authoritarian government to be a bad thing, and I do have many objections against the Chinese government, I really did not intended to equate it with the Nazis.
factual errors. Communists and socialists are traditionally anti-religious, not because they hate God, but because they have observed how religion, and Christian religion in particular, has usually been employed to uphold oppressive and unjust regimes.
No error. I think you mis-read me even worse there. Heehee. I completely agree with what you wrote. In fact I myself am an atheist. Not so long ago I participated in a "Why to atheists hate God" blog discussion. Explaining that I think Santa Clause and fairies are silly, and I think people who believe in Santa Clause and fairies are silly, and sometimes I get hatefully-angry at people who do stupid/harmful/evil things based on their belief in Santa or fairies, and trying to get it through their thick skulls just how utterly nonsensical it was for them to claim that I hate Santa or fairies. And of course the bashing-my-head-against-a-wall frustration of watching Christian fundies continue to post nonsense claiming that I hate God. So it struck me particularly odd and humorous that you thought I was accusing them of "hating God". They don't hate God, don't hate Santa, and don't hate skeletons. What they are afraid of however, is the fact that irrational people who follow fairytales are far more likely to risk their own welfare and risk their own saftey and even sacrifice their own lives fighting against an authority that they (rightly or wrongly) view as as unjust.
Fairytales are a particular threat to authoritarian power. Rational self-protecting people are relatively easy keep under control with the routine threat of arrest and imprisonment for criminal anti-government activity. Robin Hood fairytales can inspire the masses to risk their necks overthrowing an evil dictator, and a "God wants you to kill the infidels and He will reward you in heaven for it" fairytales can inspire the masses to overthrow a good government to impose a nightmare of slaughter and cruelty.
Fairytales are far less of a threat in a democratic society because the greatest power in fairytales comes in demonizing some enemy to fight against. Any fairytale storyline that takes aim to demonize the majority of population... well that's obviously a rather self-defeating situation in a democracy:D
Can someone who understands Chinese culture a little better than I explain why skeletons are considered so taboo?
I wouldn't really claim to understand Chinese culture, but I did happen to read an article explaining this particular point, so I can give you a second-hand answer.
A very deep issue in Chinese culture and thousands of years of history and mythology, is ancestry and the spirits of ancestors, bordering on ancestor worship. Anywho.... authoritarian regimes tend to take one of two approaches to religion. Either there's Nazi model where they seize upon the predominant religion (evangelical Christianity in the Nazi's case) and impose it in all the schools and throughout society as a tool of power and control by claiming "Gott Mit Uns" (God Is With Us), or there's the Stalin model that seeks to exterminate religion as a competing threat to it's own power and authority.
In Chinese culture the idea that the spirits of The Ancestors might disapprove of government policies and government actions, the idea that The Ancestors might grant strength and power to humble peasantry, to fight and win against an impossibly larger and more powerful (but corrupt) foe.
Think of our Robin Hood story, and cross it with the mythology of pretty much every martial arts movie you have ever seen where some guy beats the crap out of entire armies worth of enemies, and cross that with a mythology that idolizes and idealizes the power and nobility of ancestors, and which believes that the spirits of the ancestors still live and watch over us and that their power can be called upon.
I also think we view skeletons as generic mindless creepy-ghoulies, empty shells animated by magic, but I think they view them more as animated by the spirit of a powerful ancestor. Consider out "Night of the Living Dead" movie mythology, if you see a zombie you just whack it with a shovel, they are only dangerous if you get mobbed. On the other hand imagine a "zombie" who was the full mental-and-spiritual embodiment of King Arthur, you are NOT going to win in combat against him, and if you oppose him you're pretty much automatically "the bad guy".
Hopefully I didn't butcher Chinese culture too badly with my substantial ignorance. The Chinese government is opposed to any and all religion, considering it a threat to their own authority and their own stability. And of course they are most keenly allergic to the most deeply rooted mythologies of their own culture.
If I was ever confronted with such a form, I'd simply write in the line "ACLU" with the phone number.
And you know what would happen then, don't you?
Some government bureaucrat would call you into their office over the problem with your form... they went to the ACLU website and the password you wrote next to it didn't work.
I've been active on probably two hundred sites and had the same issue as you - there's no way in hell I could even begin to list it all on just three lines.
Then I realized I could give a substantially complete answer, using just one line. I just wrote bugmenot.com.
I guess I don't understand, then. So presumably, in order to get the keys to TPM, you'd have to pay the manufacturer of the TPM for them?
No, in oder to get the key to a TPM you would need to physically rip open the microchip and use sophisticated hardware to physically read the key out of the silicon.
Not only do they NOT EVER give you the key, but if they ever discover that you DID get your key, they revoke that key effectively killing that key and killing that TPM.
The entire point of Trusted Computing is that you do not know your key, that you are forbidden to know your key. The "Trust" in Trusted computing is the idea that OTHER PEOPLE can trust your computer - they can trust that you do not know the master key securing your computer - they can trust that you the owner cannot override the "security" restrictions on your computer - they can trust that you the owner cannot read or modify the file on your computer except under the permission and control of the TPM - they can trust that you computer will enforce DRM against you and that you do know know the key to override the DRM and that you cannot get the key to read the DRM files - they can trust that the computer will deny software from working if you make any "unauthorized" modifications to that software.
The TPM enables the computer to send a crypto-signed "spy report" saying exactly what hardware you have and exactly what software you are running. If you have modified any of your software, the TPM "spy report" will list it as unknown/unapproved software. The primary intended purpose of that spy report being for the computer at the other end to then deny or terminate that internet connection if you run the "wrong" software or if you attempt to make unapproved modifications to that software.
If you knew your key then they could not trust that spy report. If you know your key, you could have your computer SAY that you are running Internet Explorer when you're actually running Firefox, and you could use the key to sign that faked spy report. If you knew your key then they could not trust your computer. If you knew your key you would not have a Trusted Computer. The whole point of Trusted Computing is that they do not trust YOU. They want to be able to trust that your computer will send accurate spy reports on you hardware and software, they want to be able to trust that that hardware and software will do exactly what they expect it to do, they want to trust that it will NOT do anything it's not supposed to do, they want to trust that your computer will not permit you to read or copy files such as DRM'ed music, they want to be able to trust that your computer will not let you modify files such as the play-count on a pay-per-play DRM music file, they want to be able to trust that your computer will not permit software to work if you have "hacked" that software with unapproved modifications, they want to be able to trust that your computer will deny you access to files or software if the time limit on it expires or you have used up your paid usage limit.
Trusted Computing means YOU are Not Trusted. Trusted Computing means that the TPM is the Trusted Master of the "security systems" on your computer.
The way the Trust system works is a bit odd and often misunderstood, so let me clarify. It basically boils down to two things - the spy report which is called "Remote Attestation", and crypto-locking files which is called "Sealed Storage".
The first important point is that the TPM is like speakers on a computer - it doesn't do anything unless you turn it on and actively it. If you go out to buy a computer and you don't want speakers - and the store hands you an equal-or-lower-price computer WITH speakers, you might as well accept it. There's no actual reason to avoid the computer with speakers - you can accept it with speakers and just never turn them on. Well, same deal with the TPM. They plan to make it standard on ALL computers, and if you don't want it they can say it's harmless it doesn't even do anything unl
Consider you own two identical computers with identical hardware. The first computer is a TPM computer with the master key locked inside and you're forbidden to know or control that key. The second computer is identical hardware with identical, except you are allowed to buy it with a printed copy of the master key if you want to know it.
The first computer, the TPM computer, the Trusted Computer, you are forbidden to know your key. The fundamental design criteria is that it can be "secured" AGAINST you. Other people can Trust that your computer is secure against you. You can be locked out of your own files, you can be locked into particular software. It is exactly the DRM machine that the RIAA&MPAA&Microsoft have been dreaming for. You can't read or modify your own files because you don't know your key. You can only play them under the control of the TPM chip, the TPM chip only permits you to play them with the Officially Approved DRM Media Player.
The second computer, well you can have your key if you want it. That key enables you to unlock and read your own files if you want. With that key you can modify or override any of your security settings if you want. You have absolute and total control of your computer, if you want it. Your key gives you the control to override any lock in or any lock out. That makes it useless for DRM, and it means the TPM system can't he hijacked against you for any other malicious purpose.
Both computers have identical capabilities to secure your computer for you. Every single benefit to you they claim TPM gives you, you also get from the second computer. The only difference is that the second computer eliminates DRM and eliminates all of the negative uses of the TPM.
The second computer preserves ALL of the owner benefits, and eliminates ALL of the harms.
The Trusted Computing Group refuses to permit you to buy that second computer. The central design goal of Trusted Computing is EXACTLY to enable DRM and the other negative issues of Trusted Computing.
They are trying to shove a poison apple down your throat, and they are advertising it as a GOOD thing because apples have wonderful vitamins and minerals. These justifications for Trusted Computing are just plain bullshit. You cannot justify a poison apple by citing vitamins and minerals, because you could get ALL of those vitamins and minerals from an otherwise identical poison free apple.
The answer to TPMs and Trusted Computing is simple:
If a company releases a cool gadget or computer with a TPM but doesn't give me the keys, then I simply don't buy that gadget.
By definition that means ALL TPMs. The central design criteria for the TPM chip is that the master keys are locked inside and that the owner is forbidden to know or control those keys.
TPM, from my understanding, just makes it more difficult to tinker with things that were designed not to be tinkered with.
A fair percentage of laptops are already shipping with TPMs inside, and members of the Trusted Computing Group have explicitly stated the intention for TPMs to become standard hardware included on all computer motherboards.
TPM support in the kernel ultimately means little to me
Assuming they do go ahead with making TPMs standard on motherboards, and lets assume Microsoft revives their plan to make it a hardware requirement in order for a PC to be fully Certified Windows Compatible (Microsoft had intended exactly that for Vista, but it got cut along with all the other Vista cuts), yeah all the Linux support could indeed help push this TPM crap along. Linux is huge in webservers. And one of the things you can do with the TPM system is check if a website visitor is running any sort of adblocker. There are tons of websites out there that would absolutely JUMP at the chance to enforce ad views... to jump at the chance to block visitors who are running adblockers. If your computer doesn't have a TPM, or if you refuse to turn it on, then the website can't check if you running an adblocker. If you can't or won't comply with the TPM adlocker check then the presumption is that you are blocking ads, and the website will block you.
If this crap successfully goes forwards you could find yourself locked out of an increasing percentage of websites. The fact of Linux incorporating all of this TPM crap can indeed have a very real effect in helping it succeed. The more Linux business systems use the TPM the more general economic support there is for it to trickle out to general usage.
Will there come a day when all computers will ship with TPM?
Members of the Trusted Computing Computing Group have explicitly stated the intention for all motherboards to come with a TPM as standard hardware. An explicit design goal was to keep the chip low-processing-power and simple and small enough to be a sub-$5 item mounted on all motherboards and in all cellphones and included in all digital TVs and in all iPod-type media devices. A lot of work went into minimizing the chip horsepower requirements and components, exactly so it could be "ubiquitous" in any networked device or any small electronic device that might come in contact with copyrighted content.
Slashdot Mirror
I call Poe's law on your post.
Either you were impressively oblivious, or you have an impressively satirical sense of humor :D
-
...or someone bisexual.
-
This just in: 4 out of 5 Slashdot posters lack reading comprehension skills
Yeah, that's why I come here. The Slashdot community comprehension level is about 20% above that of the general population. ;)
-
The biggest issue I see is that CO2 is a byproduct of simply being alive, so you will get into the mess of "do you tax all CO2 emissions, or only those made by machines? What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard? What about campfires?"
Well, lets see.
The European cap and trade system exempts anyone who's producing less than 25,000 tons of CO2 per year. I converted 25,000 tons of CO2 into the volume of that CO2, and then looked up figures for the size of the (three giant buildings) of the US Library of congress and did a little estimating, and came up with the result that 25,000 tons of CO2 is around 22,000 times the volume of the Library of Congress.
So if you're emitting less than 22,000 LOCs of CO2 per year then you don't get taxed. I'd say it's safe to assume that "breathing" is going to fall somewhat below that threshold. "What about if some farmer burns brush in his yard?" Well I sure as hell wouldn't want to be his next door neighbor if his "little brush fire" is spewing out more than two and a half LOCs of CO2 per hour. I kinda consider it a plus if the air actually contains enough oxygen to.... you know.... actually sustain life in my living room.
-
The green movement is basically a watermelon, enviro green on the outside and red communist inside.
And don't forget the Seeds Of Homosexuality inside!
Remember kids, Jesus hates commies, and he hates gays, and he hates the environment, ummmm and he hates watermelons. Jesus especially hates the Gay Seeds of Homosexuality in watermelons.
-
Too much science supports the conclusion that CO2 insulates and raises temperature of an atmosphere to ignore.
You're wrong.
If one is motivated enough and cultivates the proper mindset, it is possible to reach a high enough level of ignore-ance to overcome any given quantity of science, evidence, and logic.
-
How many such people actually exist?
Well, as a point of comparison:
Out of about 250,000 degreed scientists across all of the earth and life sciences, there are about 700 who think that evolution-denialist "Creation Science" has any legitimacy.
Estimating the number of Moon Landing Denialists is left as an exercise for the reader.
-
One way or the other, we will finally have proof.
Either the photos will come back showing no hardware on the moon and we'll finally have proof it never happened, or they will release photos showing landing hardware on the moon and we'll finally have proof of an on going NASA conspiracy to manufacture a moon landing fraud.
Yes, one way or the other we will finally have proof.
-
In most of Europe, periods are used as thousands-separators in the same way we Americans use commas.
Oh god that, must really suck for you, like, over there.
-
You know, I used to laugh at the term "murder simulator" when it was bandied about by knee-jerk opponents of video violence some years ago. Preposterous, I said: video is video -- easily distinguishable from reality, and reasonable people know the difference between fantasy and reality. That was in the Gunsmoke Night Of The Living Dead, where the violence seemed cartoonish in black&white. And I love those movies and TV shows
Then I watched The Adventures Of Robin Hood. The blood was in color, and it was red. For the first time, hell started to freeze over, and I found myself beginning to understand the critics' point of view. As videos inched ever closer to absolute photorealism (which some industry professionals believe to be no more than 10-15 years away), violent video critics' arguments are slowly beginning to look more sane. And yes, you're reading this from a life-long video fan who staunchly opposes institutional artistic censorship.
But censorship is peanuts compared to the conundrums we'll be facing in the future with our favorite hobby. Once our video of the real world (still called, somewhat quaintly, "movies and television") begin to effectively duplicate reality, the issue of video violence won't be a matter of artistic merit or censorship anymore. It will quickly become a matter of morality, ethics, and law.
The coming storm is inevitable: turn one way, and you'll see ever-more realistic portrayals of graphic, gratuitous human violence in movies and television like The Adventures Of Robin Hood, Pearl harbor, and Fox Television's 24. Then turn the other and observe the exponential explosion of recording media and High Definition video rendering potential driven by technology. Put two and two together, and you've got quite a mess brewing.
Welcome to the Slippery Slope
Within the next 10-20 years, your virtual victims in Survivor, Gaza Strip could look, sound, and behave exactly like a real human would if you stabbed him in the neck or shot him in the gut. There'd be plenty of blood, screaming, and carnage to go around. You could watch in High Definition COlor as they bleed to death in agony.
The funny thing is -- and I'm just guessing -- you wouldn't want to do that in real life to a real human, so why would you want to watch in video? The violent scenario above seems silly now, but the stunningly realistic, color-era violent video we watch today would have seemed unthinkably graphic just fifteen years ago.
At the moment, we rationalize our simulated violence with statements like: "It's just a movie, it's just television. It's not real. The people don't suffer." All this is true (at the moment); but as the experience of virtual murder becomes ever more realistic, I believe that we as watchers will begin to suffer emotionally every time we view realistic suffering to any virtual person, just as if we caused suffering to real living creatures.
With each act of violence, a piece of us grows cold, calloused, and uncaring towards the well being of others. Repeat that, and we become slowly desensitized to pain and suffering.
As movie and TC fans, we've already begun desensitizing ourselves to simulated murder, or else we wouldn't be able to watch the violent video we have now. Video featuring endless violence is nearly as old as video movies themselves, with heavyweight title prizefight between Jim Jeffries and Tom Sharkey (1899) probably being the most influential. Back in 1998, Saving Private Ryan was the most graphically realistic simulation of murder you could find in video. It shocked people (including the author) at first.
But as the body count racked up, each death became easier to watch until we no longer had a second thought about it. The same desensitizing effect stretches back to every violent video that pushed the limits of realism -- all the way back the early horror flick The Texas Chain Saw Massacre , where a psycho mowed down people "gremlins" with a chain s
wtf is "meatspace"
It is the primary space of social of social interaction for pre-technological cultures which lack the mental or physical capability to interact in cyberspace. Meatspace is the broad collection of places where pieces of meat physically move, physically gather, and communicate by the physical emission of vocal grunts resembling a primitive form of text.
P.S.
You are made of meat.
-
And then then the child pornographer copyright holders could win $1.92 million in court because someone was sharing 24 of the pics on P2P.
-
the Chinese as a wildly repressive, fascistic regime
Actually I used the word "authoritarian", although I can see how you interpreted my post as more venomous than I had intended, from the way I used the examples of Nazis and Stalin to make my point about the bi-polar relationship between authoritarianism and religion. I do consider authoritarian government to be a bad thing, and I do have many objections against the Chinese government, I really did not intended to equate it with the Nazis.
factual errors. Communists and socialists are traditionally anti-religious, not because they hate God, but because they have observed how religion, and Christian religion in particular, has usually been employed to uphold oppressive and unjust regimes.
No error. I think you mis-read me even worse there. Heehee.
I completely agree with what you wrote. In fact I myself am an atheist. Not so long ago I participated in a "Why to atheists hate God" blog discussion. Explaining that I think Santa Clause and fairies are silly, and I think people who believe in Santa Clause and fairies are silly, and sometimes I get hatefully-angry at people who do stupid/harmful/evil things based on their belief in Santa or fairies, and trying to get it through their thick skulls just how utterly nonsensical it was for them to claim that I hate Santa or fairies. And of course the bashing-my-head-against-a-wall frustration of watching Christian fundies continue to post nonsense claiming that I hate God.
So it struck me particularly odd and humorous that you thought I was accusing them of "hating God". They don't hate God, don't hate Santa, and don't hate skeletons. What they are afraid of however, is the fact that irrational people who follow fairytales are far more likely to risk their own welfare and risk their own saftey and even sacrifice their own lives fighting against an authority that they (rightly or wrongly) view as as unjust.
Fairytales are a particular threat to authoritarian power. Rational self-protecting people are relatively easy keep under control with the routine threat of arrest and imprisonment for criminal anti-government activity. Robin Hood fairytales can inspire the masses to risk their necks overthrowing an evil dictator, and a "God wants you to kill the infidels and He will reward you in heaven for it" fairytales can inspire the masses to overthrow a good government to impose a nightmare of slaughter and cruelty.
Fairytales are far less of a threat in a democratic society because the greatest power in fairytales comes in demonizing some enemy to fight against. Any fairytale storyline that takes aim to demonize the majority of population... well that's obviously a rather self-defeating situation in a democracy :D
-
Can someone who understands Chinese culture a little better than I explain why skeletons are considered so taboo?
I wouldn't really claim to understand Chinese culture, but I did happen to read an article explaining this particular point, so I can give you a second-hand answer.
A very deep issue in Chinese culture and thousands of years of history and mythology, is ancestry and the spirits of ancestors, bordering on ancestor worship. Anywho.... authoritarian regimes tend to take one of two approaches to religion. Either there's Nazi model where they seize upon the predominant religion (evangelical Christianity in the Nazi's case) and impose it in all the schools and throughout society as a tool of power and control by claiming "Gott Mit Uns" (God Is With Us), or there's the Stalin model that seeks to exterminate religion as a competing threat to it's own power and authority.
In Chinese culture the idea that the spirits of The Ancestors might disapprove of government policies and government actions, the idea that The Ancestors might grant strength and power to humble peasantry, to fight and win against an impossibly larger and more powerful (but corrupt) foe.
Think of our Robin Hood story, and cross it with the mythology of pretty much every martial arts movie you have ever seen where some guy beats the crap out of entire armies worth of enemies, and cross that with a mythology that idolizes and idealizes the power and nobility of ancestors, and which believes that the spirits of the ancestors still live and watch over us and that their power can be called upon.
I also think we view skeletons as generic mindless creepy-ghoulies, empty shells animated by magic, but I think they view them more as animated by the spirit of a powerful ancestor. Consider out "Night of the Living Dead" movie mythology, if you see a zombie you just whack it with a shovel, they are only dangerous if you get mobbed. On the other hand imagine a "zombie" who was the full mental-and-spiritual embodiment of King Arthur, you are NOT going to win in combat against him, and if you oppose him you're pretty much automatically "the bad guy".
Hopefully I didn't butcher Chinese culture too badly with my substantial ignorance. The Chinese government is opposed to any and all religion, considering it a threat to their own authority and their own stability. And of course they are most keenly allergic to the most deeply rooted mythologies of their own culture.
-
If I was ever confronted with such a form, I'd simply write in the line "ACLU" with the phone number.
And you know what would happen then, don't you?
Some government bureaucrat would call you into their office over the problem with your form... they went to the ACLU website and the password you wrote next to it didn't work.
-
Ok, gripping a battle ax four significant digits.... and I take it the "raping and pillaging" part would be one?
-
I've been active on probably two hundred sites and had the same issue as you - there's no way in hell I could even begin to list it all on just three lines.
Then I realized I could give a substantially complete answer, using just one line.
I just wrote bugmenot.com.
-
This has certainly done a lot of damage to our credibility as a tech friendly city
Nahhhhh, I've seen your tourist campaigns on TV and Montanistan seems like a lovely place to visit.
-
The EPA, DOE, and many other left wing laws
My mostly-mercury-free-lungs appear to have very left wing sympathies.
-
A judge who rules the way I like is applying the law objectively and impartially.
A judge who makes rulings I dislike is an activist making ideology-based decisions.
-
I guess I don't understand, then. So presumably, in order to get the keys to TPM, you'd have to pay the manufacturer of the TPM for them?
No, in oder to get the key to a TPM you would need to physically rip open the microchip and use sophisticated hardware to physically read the key out of the silicon.
Not only do they NOT EVER give you the key, but if they ever discover that you DID get your key, they revoke that key effectively killing that key and killing that TPM.
The entire point of Trusted Computing is that you do not know your key, that you are forbidden to know your key. The "Trust" in Trusted computing is the idea that OTHER PEOPLE can trust your computer - they can trust that you do not know the master key securing your computer - they can trust that you the owner cannot override the "security" restrictions on your computer - they can trust that you the owner cannot read or modify the file on your computer except under the permission and control of the TPM - they can trust that you computer will enforce DRM against you and that you do know know the key to override the DRM and that you cannot get the key to read the DRM files - they can trust that the computer will deny software from working if you make any "unauthorized" modifications to that software.
The TPM enables the computer to send a crypto-signed "spy report" saying exactly what hardware you have and exactly what software you are running. If you have modified any of your software, the TPM "spy report" will list it as unknown/unapproved software. The primary intended purpose of that spy report being for the computer at the other end to then deny or terminate that internet connection if you run the "wrong" software or if you attempt to make unapproved modifications to that software.
If you knew your key then they could not trust that spy report. If you know your key, you could have your computer SAY that you are running Internet Explorer when you're actually running Firefox, and you could use the key to sign that faked spy report. If you knew your key then they could not trust your computer. If you knew your key you would not have a Trusted Computer. The whole point of Trusted Computing is that they do not trust YOU. They want to be able to trust that your computer will send accurate spy reports on you hardware and software, they want to be able to trust that that hardware and software will do exactly what they expect it to do, they want to trust that it will NOT do anything it's not supposed to do, they want to trust that your computer will not permit you to read or copy files such as DRM'ed music, they want to be able to trust that your computer will not let you modify files such as the play-count on a pay-per-play DRM music file, they want to be able to trust that your computer will not permit software to work if you have "hacked" that software with unapproved modifications, they want to be able to trust that your computer will deny you access to files or software if the time limit on it expires or you have used up your paid usage limit.
Trusted Computing means YOU are Not Trusted.
Trusted Computing means that the TPM is the Trusted Master of the "security systems" on your computer.
The way the Trust system works is a bit odd and often misunderstood, so let me clarify. It basically boils down to two things - the spy report which is called "Remote Attestation", and crypto-locking files which is called "Sealed Storage".
The first important point is that the TPM is like speakers on a computer - it doesn't do anything unless you turn it on and actively it. If you go out to buy a computer and you don't want speakers - and the store hands you an equal-or-lower-price computer WITH speakers, you might as well accept it. There's no actual reason to avoid the computer with speakers - you can accept it with speakers and just never turn them on. Well, same deal with the TPM. They plan to make it standard on ALL computers, and if you don't want it they can say it's harmless it doesn't even do anything unl
I must have missed the announcement... when did Slashdot add the new Your Rights Outside section?
-
Consider you own two identical computers with identical hardware. The first computer is a TPM computer with the master key locked inside and you're forbidden to know or control that key. The second computer is identical hardware with identical, except you are allowed to buy it with a printed copy of the master key if you want to know it.
The first computer, the TPM computer, the Trusted Computer, you are forbidden to know your key. The fundamental design criteria is that it can be "secured" AGAINST you. Other people can Trust that your computer is secure against you. You can be locked out of your own files, you can be locked into particular software. It is exactly the DRM machine that the RIAA&MPAA&Microsoft have been dreaming for. You can't read or modify your own files because you don't know your key. You can only play them under the control of the TPM chip, the TPM chip only permits you to play them with the Officially Approved DRM Media Player.
The second computer, well you can have your key if you want it. That key enables you to unlock and read your own files if you want. With that key you can modify or override any of your security settings if you want. You have absolute and total control of your computer, if you want it. Your key gives you the control to override any lock in or any lock out. That makes it useless for DRM, and it means the TPM system can't he hijacked against you for any other malicious purpose.
Both computers have identical capabilities to secure your computer for you. Every single benefit to you they claim TPM gives you, you also get from the second computer. The only difference is that the second computer eliminates DRM and eliminates all of the negative uses of the TPM.
The second computer preserves ALL of the owner benefits, and eliminates ALL of the harms.
The Trusted Computing Group refuses to permit you to buy that second computer. The central design goal of Trusted Computing is EXACTLY to enable DRM and the other negative issues of Trusted Computing.
They are trying to shove a poison apple down your throat, and they are advertising it as a GOOD thing because apples have wonderful vitamins and minerals. These justifications for Trusted Computing are just plain bullshit. You cannot justify a poison apple by citing vitamins and minerals, because you could get ALL of those vitamins and minerals from an otherwise identical poison free apple.
The answer to TPMs and Trusted Computing is simple:
Give me my key. No Key, No Sale.
-
If a company releases a cool gadget or computer with a TPM but doesn't give me the keys, then I simply don't buy that gadget.
By definition that means ALL TPMs.
The central design criteria for the TPM chip is that the master keys are locked inside and that the owner is forbidden to know or control those keys.
TPM, from my understanding, just makes it more difficult to tinker with things that were designed not to be tinkered with.
A fair percentage of laptops are already shipping with TPMs inside, and members of the Trusted Computing Group have explicitly stated the intention for TPMs to become standard hardware included on all computer motherboards.
TPM support in the kernel ultimately means little to me
Assuming they do go ahead with making TPMs standard on motherboards, and lets assume Microsoft revives their plan to make it a hardware requirement in order for a PC to be fully Certified Windows Compatible (Microsoft had intended exactly that for Vista, but it got cut along with all the other Vista cuts), yeah all the Linux support could indeed help push this TPM crap along. Linux is huge in webservers. And one of the things you can do with the TPM system is check if a website visitor is running any sort of adblocker. There are tons of websites out there that would absolutely JUMP at the chance to enforce ad views... to jump at the chance to block visitors who are running adblockers. If your computer doesn't have a TPM, or if you refuse to turn it on, then the website can't check if you running an adblocker. If you can't or won't comply with the TPM adlocker check then the presumption is that you are blocking ads, and the website will block you.
If this crap successfully goes forwards you could find yourself locked out of an increasing percentage of websites. The fact of Linux incorporating all of this TPM crap can indeed have a very real effect in helping it succeed. The more Linux business systems use the TPM the more general economic support there is for it to trickle out to general usage.
-
Will there come a day when all computers will ship with TPM?
Members of the Trusted Computing Computing Group have explicitly stated the intention for all motherboards to come with a TPM as standard hardware. An explicit design goal was to keep the chip low-processing-power and simple and small enough to be a sub-$5 item mounted on all motherboards and in all cellphones and included in all digital TVs and in all iPod-type media devices. A lot of work went into minimizing the chip horsepower requirements and components, exactly so it could be "ubiquitous" in any networked device or any small electronic device that might come in contact with copyrighted content.
-