I don't think Aero-capable "el-cheapo graphics card"s even existed around the time of Vista's release. Aero cards require decent 3-D capabilities and horsepower and RAM, specific NEW capabilities for the new DirectX standard, and the video card specification requires all sorts of idiot hardware redesign for a whole shitload of new video DRM enforcement and stringent testing and certification of all of the new hardware and software DRM security, and on and on and on.
No, I don't think there were any "el-cheapo" Aero video cards. Aero compatibility requires an entirely NEW design of an entirely new class of video card with abnormally strict and expensive design and certification requirements.
Does anyone have a price figure for a bottom end Aero-capable video card that was available within say 6 months of Vista's release? And the current lowest price for such a card?
The article puts the maximum cost of upgrading a PC at $155. That sounds extremely plausible to me for RAM+AeroVideo+installation.
A nitpick, you misjudged the head-on situation vs the stationary target situation. Via Relativity you can always translate the collision into an equal head-on collision frame of reference. The only thing that matters is the total collision velocity (aka total energy). Two head-on particles is equal to one particle with twice the energy at a stationary target. The double energy of a head-on collision is nowhere near comparable to the hundreds-of-thousands of times higher energy of a cosmic ray.
The only difference shows up when the collision products spray against the surrounding earth-reference-frame matter. Both collisions would spray a spherical fireball in the collision reference frame, but in the earth frame the stationary target collision would look like a sharply directional cone spray of products.
Ok we have to work together if we're going to get out of here alive. You watch out for ice-9 strangelets, and I'll keep my eyes open for windows-7 drmions. Shout if you see anything.
Bruce points his shotgun at the Evil Witch/Black Hole: Bruce: "Swallow this." *Blam*
Scientist: Ahhh, Bruce? It's a black hole. A Black fucking Hole, Bruce. It was about to evaporate harmlessly. Who the FUCK told you to fire high velocity lumps of LEAD into it?! You! Fucking! IDIOT!!!! You've just killed everyone on earth.
Maybe they should put it to a vote or something to find out.
Nah, that wouldn't be any good.
Instead I propose they get to vote for designated 'votors', maybe something like five or six hundred 'votors', and those 'votors' would then get to vote to figure it out. And I also propose that some people arbitrarily get four times as much 'votor' representation as other people.
I think that would be a far simpler, more logical, and fair way to find out.
It's far worse than the scandal of DOJ positions being played for political views.
In fact playing politics was responsible for much of the post-war Iraq fuckup. Interview questions for positions reconstructing Iraq included opinions on Roe vs. Wade, their position on capital punishment, who they voted for for president, and what religion they were. Positions were being handed out to freaking CAMPAIGN WORKERS. Gee, thanks for helping get Bush elected, here's a job running and rebuilding a collapsed country.
NARRATOR: At the Ministry of Interior, there was a new staff person handling planning for the prisons and police.
Col. THOMAS X. HAMMES (Ret.), Counterinsurgency Adviser, CPA: The plans counterpart, who I had to work with in the Ministry of Interior, was a 25-year old. It was his first job after college. So I asked him- I said, "That's pretty interesting. How big a plan cell do you have?" He said, "I have four guys." I said, "That's pretty small." He said, "Yes, but we're really tight because we're frat brothers." I never in my life thought I would encounter "frat brothers" and "strategic planners" in the same sentence.
The person placed in charge of Iraqi prisons and police was 25, fresh out of college, and his planning staff was his four frat brothers.
Gee, I wonder why the Iraq situation went to shit. Wait... nevermind Iraq... make that the United States.
The Department of Justice, Iraq, science policy, the economy, FEMA, the various Three Letter Acronym intelligence agencies, even the fucking Supreme Court (particularly the cokehead selection Harriet fucking Myers) all throughout government the Bush administration systematically said screw competence, screw experience, screw facts, to hell with the truth, it's all about having the correct rightwing ideology and campaign working and a loyal supporter of the right politicians.
I don't know the exact performance for the chip, but you will likely find it extremely disappointing. Even with a low end CPU you will get much better performance just running your crypto directly on the CPU. I recall reading that on some TPMs a single RSA operation might take a half second or more. The TPM is targeted to be a cheap chip, with Trust-enforcement being the design target. The target processing capacity is adequate to securely log the system state, to securely report and sign that system state, and to encrypt/decrypt the keys being passed into and out of the Trusted software. The chip was not intended to preform any sort of bulk encryption/decryption of data, just key management.
I guess you could try to parallel process, offloading some crypto operations to the TPM while the CPU does other stuff. If the CPU has to stop and wait for some slow crypto result then the 'parallel processing' performance would well be worse than just single processing on the CPU.
If you do get your code running I would be most interested to hear what sort of performance you get out of it. If you do, feel free to post a reply to any post of mine anywhere.
So why can schools apply these parental rights even after a student has passed 18 years old
The courts do not apply this substitute-parent reasoning to college situations. Elementary, middle, and high schools generally aren't populated much with 18+ year olds:) so I assume it's generally a moot question. Presumably a high school would not be allowed to search an 18+ year old like that.
I thought "Gay Marriage doesn't threaten marriage, it just mandates its elimination" was a pretty spectacular leap on your end, so perhaps I was indeed motivated to spectacularism in reply. Chuckle.
(Spellcheck does not like the word "spectacularism". Stupid dictionaries.)
I don't think I was "gibbering" about interracial marriage. I think I presented a valid Constitutional argument that the interracial marriage and gay marriage situations are functionally identical. Maybe I rushed over a bit, I had explained it elsewhere in more depth. Under the Equal Protection Clause the law is not to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or religion. Short of a Constitutional amendment it is impossible to craft a valid law excluding same-gender couples for the exact same reason it's impossible to craft a valid law excluding mixed-race couple. You have to examine the applicants' races in order to exclude interracial couples, and you need to examine applicants' genders to exclude same-gender couples. Substitute gender for race and it's the identical logic. Short of a Constitutional amendment, gay marriage is and can-only-be legal.
If you think I am in error I'd be interested to hear where. However calling it "gibberish" doesn't give me any hint where or how you think my reasoning fails.
Do you agree that the law should be blind to race gender and religion? And if you do, how do propose to write a law excluding same-gender marriage applications when the law is blind to the genders of the applicants?
I want to know if such techniques could be used to run your own program or your own OS of your choice on your box when the time comes "trusted computing" is used to lock down many computers.
I nearly wrote the wrong answer to you. I think I just spotted a myth/misunderstanding hiding behind your question and I have to clear that up before I give the answer I was going to give.
Trusted Computing is unbelievably insidious. If a big ugly monster with fangs and claws walks up to your front door, no one is going to let him in. If a computer can't run your own program or your own OS, no one is going to buy it.
Trusted Computing pulls an impressive trick. It is so evil and so insidious that there is absolutely no rational reason NOT to buy a Trusted Computer. The monster at your front door is so evil and insidious that you are literally by all objective measures BETTER OFF if you do let him in the front door.
A Trusted Computer can do anything and everything a normal computer can do, and more. A Trusted Computer can run any software a normal computer can run, and more.
A Trusted Computer is like a computer with speakers, and a normal computer has no speakers. You go into buy a new computer and they hand you a Trusted Computer - you don't want speakers but that doesn't matter. You may as well take the Trusted Computer home and just never turn the speakers on. A computer with speakers can do anything and everything a speakerless computer can do, and more. If the Trusted Computer is the same price or less, there is no reason not to take the computer with speakers and then just ignore them
The trick is that Trusted Computers have extra bonus abilities. If you choose, you can turn on the Trust system and you can do extra new stuff and you can run extra new software. The catch is, the new mode is hand-cuff mode. You can view the new Trusted Files, but only if you voluntarily choose to put handcuffs on yourself first. You can run the new Trusted software, but only if you voluntarily choose to put handcuffs on yourself first. You can read the new Trusted email, you an view the new Trusted websites, you can play the new Trusted games, you can use the new Trusted internet protocols, but only if you voluntarily choose to put handcuffs on yourself first.
It's all "voluntary" and "opt-in". If you don't volunteer for handcuffs, if you don't opt in, then you can't read any of the new Trusted files, can't read the new Trusted email, can't run any of the new Trusted software, can't view any of the new Trusted websites, you can't connect to any of the new Trusted web servers. Other computers running Trusted applications will drop your internet connections if you try to connect to them.
If you have a Trusted Computer you have two options. Option one, you can leave the Trust system off and you can do everything and anything a normal computer can do - and you're locked out of everything new. Option two, you turn on the handcuffs and everything works - all the old files still work in the old programs, and all the new stuff works in uber-DRM mode.
If you have a normal computer you have no choices. Your old software and old files work, but you are locked out of everything new.
If you have an old normal computer, or if you do not "voluntarily" opt-in, then you get increasingly screwed as you are locked out of more and more new stuff.
And they have something called Trusted Network Connect. Right now it is targeted at business use, but in a decade or somesuch ISPs could potentially start using it. And what it does is a Trusted scan of your computer - they call it a "health check" - and they advertise it as a check to make sure you're not infected with a virus or trojan, to make sure you have the latest system patches to ensure you aren't vulnerable to viruses and trojans, and maybe to make sure you're running an up to date firewall and virus scanner. In order to even run this "health check" you must first be in Trusted mode. If you haven't voluntarily put the handcuffs on, the
Thankyouthankyouthankyou:) Yep, that's the one, Trusted Computing to defend us against Osama bin Laden himself. LOL
About a week ago it dawned on me to look on Waybackmachine, but I got sidetracked. Doh doh double-doh.
It looks like you found the files that you need to access the chip. I don't have a chip in my system so I can't help much on firing it up. I've been studying the tech-specs and any other info I can dig up, all theory and doing anti-advocacy, no coding yet. From the software side the chip is almost impregnable. Seriously. And this from someone who considers ALL software DRM schemes inherently crackable by definition. The chip and the design are insane, and they work.
On the other hand I think I see some fairly soft attack vectors on the hardware side, at least until they roll the TPM inside the CPU chip itself - then things get more interesting. My prime plan is that I think it should be possible to cut or short one or more lines on the TPM chip to effectively deactivate it or at least isolate it, boot into custom control software, flip the switch, and just feed the chip the same sequence of values it would load during the authentic Trusted boot sequence. A flip-flop version of that would be to preform the authentic Trusted boot, then hit the switch to isolate the chip from incoming signals so it retains its "Trusted" state, then reboot the PC into your control system and reconnect the chip. Either way you get total control of the computer and the chip will cheerfully do all of the crypto work to need it to do to fake the Trust system, and it will cheerfully show you essentially everything you need to see. The hardware hack should be pretty easy, it's the custom control software that will need significant development. Much of that should be a relatively straight forward derivation from the Trusted Software Stack source that they've published.
Please don't assume I'm stupid. I once read and understood the entire specification of TPM.
I did not intent to imply anywhere that you were stupid. Very few people have read the tech specks on the TPM or understand it in detail, so I routinely attempt to explain things at a not-too-technical level. It's also possible that in my tired state my ramblings came across badly.
TPM cannot protect against hardcore physical attacks, so let's agree not to discuss them.
I'm confused by the logic of that dismissal of the subject. If I end up with a TPM equipped computer I fully intend to extract my key or otherwise jail-break it. I also fully intend to use that expertise to do the same for my friends, and I fully intend to encourage and inform as much of the general public as I can to do so as well.
It's likely to be a pain in the ass, it is absolutely pointless that it *is* a pain in the ass, it is absolutely malicious that it is a pain in the ass, but I absolutely intend to do so. It's my property and no one has any right to object. I absolutely intend to improve my computer. I absolutely intend to increase the functionality and capabilities of my computer. I absolutely intend "TPM override" functionality expanding my control and capabilities above the deliberate hand-cuff level capabilities of a standard unmodified TPM.
So I fail to see why you want to "agree not to discuss them". As I understand it they are extremely relevant to the whole subject. They are engaging in an explicitly owner-hostile attempt to make it as much of a pain in the ass as possible. They cannot prevent it, all they can do is make it pointlessly difficult, and, if they get a chance, to become even more explicitly and malevolent and deliberately screw over those owners by revoking that key.
Now let's discuss the PrivEK. I gather you want to know it. Do I understand you correctly?
Correct. I want to know my PrivEK in my chip. I'm not expecting access to anyone else's keys.
If so, what meaning do you ascribe to the manufacturer's signature on the PubEK?
That question has different answers on different levels. I acknowledge that what you would like it to mean and what they would like it to mean is that this key will never leave the chip and the computer will be "Trusted-secure" against the owner.
So you could say I consider that signature to represent an invalid assumption.
Or you could say I personally ascribe almost no meaning to that signature, in that the alleged meaning is invalid.
Or you could say I ascribe it to be an attempt to exclude interoperability (a non-compliant chip has no signature and will be rejected, as will keys on the revocation list).
Or you could say I ascribe it to be a (possibly illegal) monopoly enforcement mechanism. The Trusted Computing Group has the top level master key and uses it to impose Monopoly Control over chip manufacturers and thereby monopoly control over all chips and the entire system. (The manufacturer key is not valid unless it is signed by the Trusted Computing Group's master key.)
Or we could just go with what it actually literally means (presuming that the Trusted Computing Group has signed that manufacturer key)... It means the manufacturer has signed the key. Along public claim that the Trusted Computing Group will only sign keys for manufacturers bound by contract to only produce compliant chips. So presuming the Trusted Computing Group statement is actually reliable, and presuming that manufacturers do not violate their contracts, assuming all that true, the manufacturer's signature means exactly one thing - the chip was manufactured in compliance with the specification.
You might want to assume that means the key is still inside a compliant chip, but the manufacture no longer owns that chip and can no longer make any valid assertions about that chip, beyond that they did manufacture it in compliance with the standard. Once they sell that chip they can no longe
Nope. There's a legal principal called In loco parentis. It means that while you are in school the school essentially takes over much of the role of being the parent. In particular in New Jersey v. T. L. O. the Supreme Court ruled that school officials may search a student's personal effects based on any "reasonable suspicion". That is a far lower standard than "probable cause".
If a police officer enters the school he MAY NOT engage in that sort of search - he still needs to follow the standard probable cause / search warrant rules. In that situation can the police officer ask the school official to preform a "mere suspicion" search? The court explicitly did not rule on that. On one hand it opens a blatant loophole invalidating the fact that the police are supposed to need a warrant to obtain that search, on the other hand one could say the request by the officer caused the school official to have a "reasonable suspicion" and as already ruled he is permitted to act on it.
The courts do recognize the general point that students have civil rights, however they quite often limit them as minors or trade them off against the government interest in running the school or grant school officials parent-like authority over the students. There are countless cases carving out a mish-mash of student rights that are protected and assorted exceptions to those rights.
One case that I enjoy citing in particular involved the ACLU, Separation of Church and State, and a student wanting a Bible quote printed in the school yearbook (all students were offered space for a short personal comment of their choice to be printed in the yearbook).
I particularly like that case because of the people who don't understand the Constitution and don't understand what Separation of Church and State actually means, and who proceed to demonize the ACLU as 'anti-religion'.
The school principal has refused to print the Bible quote in the school yearbook. He believed that the school was not allowed to print religious content. The ACLU jumped in to defend the student and the student's right to free speech and the student's religious freedom. The Separation of Church and State means that the government cannot promote any favored religion or any favored religious belief nor oppress any disfavored one. The school officials cannot abuse their position to push their religion. However the school had offered the students a forum for speech. The school offered all students an open equal space in the yearbook to engage in their own speech. Having done so, the school cannot discriminate for or against any particular religion, nor can the school discriminate against that speech simply for being religious in content.
The ACLU and the student won. The school cannot engage in religious speech, the principal-as-a-representative-of-government could not select a Bible quote or Koran quote as officially established text on the cover, but the government cannot discriminate against student's religious freedom and religious speech.
Students can (non-disruptively) pray in school - and the ACLU officially supports the right of students to do so, and even has a standing invitation to any student who has that right infringed to come seek the ACLU's assistance. The ACLU has been involved in several cases against school prayer, but in each and every such case the ACLU has been defending the Religious Freedom of students against violation by school officials. In each and every such case the actual lawsuit has been against laws or school officials attempting to meddle in student's religious beliefs and practices. Each and every case has been against a government law or government official abusing their power to force or promote prayer by students. Separation of Church and State means the government cannot meddle in our religious freedom and religious practices. Separation of Church and State means the government can neither promote nor suppress prayer by students.
On a more serious note, when did mere nudity = porn?
On an even more serious note, NON-nudes are prosecuted as child porn if the prosecutor decides the camera is focusing to close to the genital regions, or if he decides the pose is too sexual, or if he feels the model has a sexually inviting expression on her face. Basically if the prosecutor gets horny, that makes it child porn. And images of adults are child porn if the person appears underage. And drawings are child porn. And computer generated graphics are child porn. And people have even been prosecuted for written fiction - just plain words on a page. Fiction written in his private secret diary. But it's ok he went to prison, they were really really naughty words describing really really naughty fictional things, and he was a bad guy anyway.
Across most of the world and throughout most of history kids commonly got MARRIED in their teens, or even earlier. And you go on some delusional rant about ages going DOWN (laugh!) and *shock* *horror* some people see naked bodies before they graduate highschool.
Across most of the world and throughout most of history kids commonly got MARRIED in their teens, or even earlier, normal routine common marriages with their parents approval. And you go on some delusional rant *OH MY GOD some people see naked bodies* before they graduate high school because there are a few freakish parents who don't teach their kids anything.
You are an absolute riot. A delusional riot.
I have news for you. People get horny. KIDS get horny. It generally kicks in pretty hard when puberty hits, and often earlier. Some parents have run to the doctor terrified that their infant is having some sort of epileptic seizure - turns out the infant's "seizure" was the rhythmic grinding of their genitals against the center post of the infant-seat between their legs. Hell, even FETUSES IN THE WOMB have been caught playing with themselves on ultrasound video.
The idea that normal kids have no sexual thoughts or sexual feelings or sexual experimentation before the age of 18 is an extremely recent candyland fantasy. The notion that there has been a DECLINE in age is totally delusional. The notion that it only happens to the children of freakish irresponsible or perverted parents is totally delusional.
Humans are born with a hardwired programmed urge for air. Humans are born with a hardwired programmed urge for food and drink. Humans are born with a hardwired programmed urge for sexual stimulation.
The idea that it doesn't exist or doesn't kick in until your wedding night a decade after puberty is not normal.
When I was in elementary school I up and grabbed by babysitter's tits and started squeezing them. Why? Because as a human male I am (and was) genetically programmed to find females attractive. Because as a human male I am (and was) genetically programmed to find tits extremely attractive and sexually arousing. That is NORMAL. Trying to blame it on my parents is as delusional as blaming my parents when I sneeze after getting pollen in my nose.
Oh, and by the way, she enjoyed it and she was kind enough to return the favor.
any lawyer worth his weight in water should be able to show this was not the intent of the law.
Yeah, good luck with that.
We must save the children.
In fact the MAJORITY of images in child porn prosecutions are images like these. Self-photos, or simple nudes or partial nudity or even fully-clothed images that the prosecutor decides arouse him, or even drawings and computer-generated graphics. Oh, and don't forget the images of adults who look underage, those can be prosecuted as kiddyporn too.
Just remember never ever to criticize any kiddyporn law. Anyone who complains about kiddyporn law is a witch and must be burned at the stake. Anyone who opposes passing new and more expansive kiddyporn laws is a witch and must be burned at the stake.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Aero-capable "el-cheapo graphics card"s even existed around the time of Vista's release. Aero cards require decent 3-D capabilities and horsepower and RAM, specific NEW capabilities for the new DirectX standard, and the video card specification requires all sorts of idiot hardware redesign for a whole shitload of new video DRM enforcement and stringent testing and certification of all of the new hardware and software DRM security, and on and on and on.
No, I don't think there were any "el-cheapo" Aero video cards. Aero compatibility requires an entirely NEW design of an entirely new class of video card with abnormally strict and expensive design and certification requirements.
Does anyone have a price figure for a bottom end Aero-capable video card that was available within say 6 months of Vista's release? And the current lowest price for such a card?
The article puts the maximum cost of upgrading a PC at $155. That sounds extremely plausible to me for RAM+AeroVideo+installation.
-
It takes a really craven sort of logic to think that any kind of death in war is special.
Call me craven if you like, but I'd be inclined to think any autoerotic asphyxiation deaths during a war to be rather 'special'. :)
-
Anyone with less money than me is lazy bum.
Anyone with more money than me is a greedy ass.
-
I think I will spend my time worrying about more likely problems, like cholesterol and cancer...
or getting simultaneously gang-raped by Jessica Alba, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lopez, Alyssa Milano, and Natalie Portman.
-
A nitpick, you misjudged the head-on situation vs the stationary target situation. Via Relativity you can always translate the collision into an equal head-on collision frame of reference. The only thing that matters is the total collision velocity (aka total energy). Two head-on particles is equal to one particle with twice the energy at a stationary target. The double energy of a head-on collision is nowhere near comparable to the hundreds-of-thousands of times higher energy of a cosmic ray.
The only difference shows up when the collision products spray against the surrounding earth-reference-frame matter. Both collisions would spray a spherical fireball in the collision reference frame, but in the earth frame the stationary target collision would look like a sharply directional cone spray of products.
-
Ok we have to work together if we're going to get out of here alive. You watch out for ice-9 strangelets, and I'll keep my eyes open for windows-7 drmions. Shout if you see anything.
-
Bruce points his shotgun at the Evil Witch/Black Hole:
Bruce: "Swallow this."
*Blam*
Scientist: Ahhh, Bruce?
It's a black hole.
A Black fucking Hole, Bruce.
It was about to evaporate harmlessly.
Who the FUCK told you to fire high velocity lumps of LEAD into it?!
You!
Fucking!
IDIOT!!!!
You've just killed everyone on earth.
Bruce: oops.
-
Physics and climatology are public-relations HEAVEN compared to biology.
-
This is the kinder, gentler Microsoft we heard about just yesterday?
Yeah. They use lube now.
Well, they grabbed the Liquid Drano by accident, but they meant to use lube. And it's the thought that counts.
-
Now you can buy songs from iTunes and play them on your Zune.(*)
(*) Leap days not included.
-
Maybe they should put it to a vote or something to find out.
Nah, that wouldn't be any good.
Instead I propose they get to vote for designated 'votors', maybe something like five or six hundred 'votors', and those 'votors' would then get to vote to figure it out. And I also propose that some people arbitrarily get four times as much 'votor' representation as other people.
I think that would be a far simpler, more logical, and fair way to find out.
-
Occam's razor suggests that it's more plausible that a single man is attention-whoring than that his outrageous claims are true.
Yes, Occam would be appalled at the alternative: Spy agencies... spying.
-
And I've got a low ID, so that makes it true.
Pffft!
I'm not impressed with a post until the Mod Score is higher than the ID. Good freaking luck Mr 379.
-
It's far worse than the scandal of DOJ positions being played for political views.
In fact playing politics was responsible for much of the post-war Iraq fuckup. Interview questions for positions reconstructing Iraq included opinions on Roe vs. Wade, their position on capital punishment, who they voted for for president, and what religion they were. Positions were being handed out to freaking CAMPAIGN WORKERS. Gee, thanks for helping get Bush elected, here's a job running and rebuilding a collapsed country.
PBS: The Lost Year in Iraq video or transcript
The person placed in charge of Iraqi prisons and police was 25, fresh out of college, and his planning staff was his four frat brothers.
Gee, I wonder why the Iraq situation went to shit.
Wait... nevermind Iraq... make that the United States.
The Department of Justice, Iraq, science policy, the economy, FEMA, the various Three Letter Acronym intelligence agencies, even the fucking Supreme Court (particularly the cokehead selection Harriet fucking Myers) all throughout government the Bush administration systematically said screw competence, screw experience, screw facts, to hell with the truth, it's all about having the correct rightwing ideology and campaign working and a loyal supporter of the right politicians.
-
I don't know the exact performance for the chip, but you will likely find it extremely disappointing. Even with a low end CPU you will get much better performance just running your crypto directly on the CPU. I recall reading that on some TPMs a single RSA operation might take a half second or more. The TPM is targeted to be a cheap chip, with Trust-enforcement being the design target. The target processing capacity is adequate to securely log the system state, to securely report and sign that system state, and to encrypt/decrypt the keys being passed into and out of the Trusted software. The chip was not intended to preform any sort of bulk encryption/decryption of data, just key management.
I guess you could try to parallel process, offloading some crypto operations to the TPM while the CPU does other stuff. If the CPU has to stop and wait for some slow crypto result then the 'parallel processing' performance would well be worse than just single processing on the CPU.
If you do get your code running I would be most interested to hear what sort of performance you get out of it. If you do, feel free to post a reply to any post of mine anywhere.
-
So why can schools apply these parental rights even after a student has passed 18 years old
The courts do not apply this substitute-parent reasoning to college situations. Elementary, middle, and high schools generally aren't populated much with 18+ year olds :) so I assume it's generally a moot question. Presumably a high school would not be allowed to search an 18+ year old like that.
-
I thought "Gay Marriage doesn't threaten marriage, it just mandates its elimination" was a pretty spectacular leap on your end, so perhaps I was indeed motivated to spectacularism in reply. Chuckle.
(Spellcheck does not like the word "spectacularism". Stupid dictionaries.)
I don't think I was "gibbering" about interracial marriage. I think I presented a valid Constitutional argument that the interracial marriage and gay marriage situations are functionally identical. Maybe I rushed over a bit, I had explained it elsewhere in more depth. Under the Equal Protection Clause the law is not to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or religion. Short of a Constitutional amendment it is impossible to craft a valid law excluding same-gender couples for the exact same reason it's impossible to craft a valid law excluding mixed-race couple. You have to examine the applicants' races in order to exclude interracial couples, and you need to examine applicants' genders to exclude same-gender couples. Substitute gender for race and it's the identical logic. Short of a Constitutional amendment, gay marriage is and can-only-be legal.
If you think I am in error I'd be interested to hear where. However calling it "gibberish" doesn't give me any hint where or how you think my reasoning fails.
Do you agree that the law should be blind to race gender and religion?
And if you do, how do propose to write a law excluding same-gender marriage applications when the law is blind to the genders of the applicants?
-
I want to know if such techniques could be used to run your own program or your own OS of your choice on your box when the time comes "trusted computing" is used to lock down many computers.
I nearly wrote the wrong answer to you. I think I just spotted a myth/misunderstanding hiding behind your question and I have to clear that up before I give the answer I was going to give.
Trusted Computing is unbelievably insidious. If a big ugly monster with fangs and claws walks up to your front door, no one is going to let him in. If a computer can't run your own program or your own OS, no one is going to buy it.
Trusted Computing pulls an impressive trick. It is so evil and so insidious that there is absolutely no rational reason NOT to buy a Trusted Computer. The monster at your front door is so evil and insidious that you are literally by all objective measures BETTER OFF if you do let him in the front door.
A Trusted Computer can do anything and everything a normal computer can do, and more.
A Trusted Computer can run any software a normal computer can run, and more.
A Trusted Computer is like a computer with speakers, and a normal computer has no speakers. You go into buy a new computer and they hand you a Trusted Computer - you don't want speakers but that doesn't matter. You may as well take the Trusted Computer home and just never turn the speakers on. A computer with speakers can do anything and everything a speakerless computer can do, and more. If the Trusted Computer is the same price or less, there is no reason not to take the computer with speakers and then just ignore them
The trick is that Trusted Computers have extra bonus abilities. If you choose, you can turn on the Trust system and you can do extra new stuff and you can run extra new software. The catch is, the new mode is hand-cuff mode. You can view the new Trusted Files, but only if you voluntarily choose to put handcuffs on yourself first. You can run the new Trusted software, but only if you voluntarily choose to put handcuffs on yourself first. You can read the new Trusted email, you an view the new Trusted websites, you can play the new Trusted games, you can use the new Trusted internet protocols, but only if you voluntarily choose to put handcuffs on yourself first.
It's all "voluntary" and "opt-in". If you don't volunteer for handcuffs, if you don't opt in, then you can't read any of the new Trusted files, can't read the new Trusted email, can't run any of the new Trusted software, can't view any of the new Trusted websites, you can't connect to any of the new Trusted web servers. Other computers running Trusted applications will drop your internet connections if you try to connect to them.
If you have a Trusted Computer you have two options. Option one, you can leave the Trust system off and you can do everything and anything a normal computer can do - and you're locked out of everything new. Option two, you turn on the handcuffs and everything works - all the old files still work in the old programs, and all the new stuff works in uber-DRM mode.
If you have a normal computer you have no choices. Your old software and old files work, but you are locked out of everything new.
If you have an old normal computer, or if you do not "voluntarily" opt-in, then you get increasingly screwed as you are locked out of more and more new stuff.
And they have something called Trusted Network Connect. Right now it is targeted at business use, but in a decade or somesuch ISPs could potentially start using it. And what it does is a Trusted scan of your computer - they call it a "health check" - and they advertise it as a check to make sure you're not infected with a virus or trojan, to make sure you have the latest system patches to ensure you aren't vulnerable to viruses and trojans, and maybe to make sure you're running an up to date firewall and virus scanner. In order to even run this "health check" you must first be in Trusted mode. If you haven't voluntarily put the handcuffs on, the
Thankyouthankyouthankyou :)
Yep, that's the one, Trusted Computing to defend us against Osama bin Laden himself. LOL
About a week ago it dawned on me to look on Waybackmachine, but I got sidetracked. Doh doh double-doh.
It looks like you found the files that you need to access the chip. I don't have a chip in my system so I can't help much on firing it up. I've been studying the tech-specs and any other info I can dig up, all theory and doing anti-advocacy, no coding yet. From the software side the chip is almost impregnable. Seriously. And this from someone who considers ALL software DRM schemes inherently crackable by definition. The chip and the design are insane, and they work.
On the other hand I think I see some fairly soft attack vectors on the hardware side, at least until they roll the TPM inside the CPU chip itself - then things get more interesting. My prime plan is that I think it should be possible to cut or short one or more lines on the TPM chip to effectively deactivate it or at least isolate it, boot into custom control software, flip the switch, and just feed the chip the same sequence of values it would load during the authentic Trusted boot sequence. A flip-flop version of that would be to preform the authentic Trusted boot, then hit the switch to isolate the chip from incoming signals so it retains its "Trusted" state, then reboot the PC into your control system and reconnect the chip. Either way you get total control of the computer and the chip will cheerfully do all of the crypto work to need it to do to fake the Trust system, and it will cheerfully show you essentially everything you need to see. The hardware hack should be pretty easy, it's the custom control software that will need significant development. Much of that should be a relatively straight forward derivation from the Trusted Software Stack source that they've published.
-
Please don't assume I'm stupid. I once read and understood the entire specification of TPM.
I did not intent to imply anywhere that you were stupid. Very few people have read the tech specks on the TPM or understand it in detail, so I routinely attempt to explain things at a not-too-technical level. It's also possible that in my tired state my ramblings came across badly.
TPM cannot protect against hardcore physical attacks, so let's agree not to discuss them.
I'm confused by the logic of that dismissal of the subject.
If I end up with a TPM equipped computer I fully intend to extract my key or otherwise jail-break it. I also fully intend to use that expertise to do the same for my friends, and I fully intend to encourage and inform as much of the general public as I can to do so as well.
It's likely to be a pain in the ass, it is absolutely pointless that it *is* a pain in the ass, it is absolutely malicious that it is a pain in the ass, but I absolutely intend to do so. It's my property and no one has any right to object. I absolutely intend to improve my computer. I absolutely intend to increase the functionality and capabilities of my computer. I absolutely intend "TPM override" functionality expanding my control and capabilities above the deliberate hand-cuff level capabilities of a standard unmodified TPM.
So I fail to see why you want to "agree not to discuss them". As I understand it they are extremely relevant to the whole subject. They are engaging in an explicitly owner-hostile attempt to make it as much of a pain in the ass as possible. They cannot prevent it, all they can do is make it pointlessly difficult, and, if they get a chance, to become even more explicitly and malevolent and deliberately screw over those owners by revoking that key.
Now let's discuss the PrivEK. I gather you want to know it. Do I understand you correctly?
Correct. I want to know my PrivEK in my chip. I'm not expecting access to anyone else's keys.
If so, what meaning do you ascribe to the manufacturer's signature on the PubEK?
That question has different answers on different levels.
I acknowledge that what you would like it to mean and what they would like it to mean is that this key will never leave the chip and the computer will be "Trusted-secure" against the owner.
So you could say I consider that signature to represent an invalid assumption.
Or you could say I personally ascribe almost no meaning to that signature, in that the alleged meaning is invalid.
Or you could say I ascribe it to be an attempt to exclude interoperability (a non-compliant chip has no signature and will be rejected, as will keys on the revocation list).
Or you could say I ascribe it to be a (possibly illegal) monopoly enforcement mechanism. The Trusted Computing Group has the top level master key and uses it to impose Monopoly Control over chip manufacturers and thereby monopoly control over all chips and the entire system. (The manufacturer key is not valid unless it is signed by the Trusted Computing Group's master key.)
Or we could just go with what it actually literally means (presuming that the Trusted Computing Group has signed that manufacturer key)...
It means the manufacturer has signed the key.
Along public claim that the Trusted Computing Group will only sign keys for manufacturers bound by contract to only produce compliant chips.
So presuming the Trusted Computing Group statement is actually reliable, and presuming that manufacturers do not violate their contracts, assuming all that true, the manufacturer's signature means exactly one thing - the chip was manufactured in compliance with the specification.
You might want to assume that means the key is still inside a compliant chip, but the manufacture no longer owns that chip and can no longer make any valid assertions about that chip, beyond that they did manufacture it in compliance with the standard. Once they sell that chip they can no longe
Nope. There's a legal principal called In loco parentis. It means that while you are in school the school essentially takes over much of the role of being the parent. In particular in New Jersey v. T. L. O. the Supreme Court ruled that school officials may search a student's personal effects based on any "reasonable suspicion". That is a far lower standard than "probable cause".
If a police officer enters the school he MAY NOT engage in that sort of search - he still needs to follow the standard probable cause / search warrant rules. In that situation can the police officer ask the school official to preform a "mere suspicion" search? The court explicitly did not rule on that. On one hand it opens a blatant loophole invalidating the fact that the police are supposed to need a warrant to obtain that search, on the other hand one could say the request by the officer caused the school official to have a "reasonable suspicion" and as already ruled he is permitted to act on it.
The courts do recognize the general point that students have civil rights, however they quite often limit them as minors or trade them off against the government interest in running the school or grant school officials parent-like authority over the students. There are countless cases carving out a mish-mash of student rights that are protected and assorted exceptions to those rights.
One case that I enjoy citing in particular involved the ACLU, Separation of Church and State, and a student wanting a Bible quote printed in the school yearbook (all students were offered space for a short personal comment of their choice to be printed in the yearbook).
I particularly like that case because of the people who don't understand the Constitution and don't understand what Separation of Church and State actually means, and who proceed to demonize the ACLU as 'anti-religion'.
The school principal has refused to print the Bible quote in the school yearbook. He believed that the school was not allowed to print religious content. The ACLU jumped in to defend the student and the student's right to free speech and the student's religious freedom. The Separation of Church and State means that the government cannot promote any favored religion or any favored religious belief nor oppress any disfavored one. The school officials cannot abuse their position to push their religion. However the school had offered the students a forum for speech. The school offered all students an open equal space in the yearbook to engage in their own speech. Having done so, the school cannot discriminate for or against any particular religion, nor can the school discriminate against that speech simply for being religious in content.
The ACLU and the student won. The school cannot engage in religious speech, the principal-as-a-representative-of-government could not select a Bible quote or Koran quote as officially established text on the cover, but the government cannot discriminate against student's religious freedom and religious speech.
Students can (non-disruptively) pray in school - and the ACLU officially supports the right of students to do so, and even has a standing invitation to any student who has that right infringed to come seek the ACLU's assistance. The ACLU has been involved in several cases against school prayer, but in each and every such case the ACLU has been defending the Religious Freedom of students against violation by school officials. In each and every such case the actual lawsuit has been against laws or school officials attempting to meddle in student's religious beliefs and practices. Each and every case has been against a government law or government official abusing their power to force or promote prayer by students. Separation of Church and State means the government cannot meddle in our religious freedom and religious practices. Separation of Church and State means the government can neither promote nor suppress prayer by students.
-
Yep, your mom gives great head.
P.S.
I hope that skill runs in the family, I'll be seeing you tonight.
-
On a more serious note, when did mere nudity = porn?
On an even more serious note, NON-nudes are prosecuted as child porn if the prosecutor decides the camera is focusing to close to the genital regions, or if he decides the pose is too sexual, or if he feels the model has a sexually inviting expression on her face. Basically if the prosecutor gets horny, that makes it child porn. And images of adults are child porn if the person appears underage. And drawings are child porn. And computer generated graphics are child porn. And people have even been prosecuted for written fiction - just plain words on a page. Fiction written in his private secret diary. But it's ok he went to prison, they were really really naughty words describing really really naughty fictional things, and he was a bad guy anyway.
-
You're funny.
Across most of the world and throughout most of history kids commonly got MARRIED in their teens, or even earlier. And you go on some delusional rant about ages going DOWN (laugh!) and *shock* *horror* some people see naked bodies before they graduate highschool.
Across most of the world and throughout most of history kids commonly got MARRIED in their teens, or even earlier, normal routine common marriages with their parents approval. And you go on some delusional rant *OH MY GOD some people see naked bodies* before they graduate high school because there are a few freakish parents who don't teach their kids anything.
You are an absolute riot. A delusional riot.
I have news for you. People get horny. KIDS get horny. It generally kicks in pretty hard when puberty hits, and often earlier. Some parents have run to the doctor terrified that their infant is having some sort of epileptic seizure - turns out the infant's "seizure" was the rhythmic grinding of their genitals against the center post of the infant-seat between their legs. Hell, even FETUSES IN THE WOMB have been caught playing with themselves on ultrasound video.
The idea that normal kids have no sexual thoughts or sexual feelings or sexual experimentation before the age of 18 is an extremely recent candyland fantasy. The notion that there has been a DECLINE in age is totally delusional. The notion that it only happens to the children of freakish irresponsible or perverted parents is totally delusional.
Humans are born with a hardwired programmed urge for air.
Humans are born with a hardwired programmed urge for food and drink.
Humans are born with a hardwired programmed urge for sexual stimulation.
The idea that it doesn't exist or doesn't kick in until your wedding night a decade after puberty is not normal.
When I was in elementary school I up and grabbed by babysitter's tits and started squeezing them. Why? Because as a human male I am (and was) genetically programmed to find females attractive. Because as a human male I am (and was) genetically programmed to find tits extremely attractive and sexually arousing. That is NORMAL. Trying to blame it on my parents is as delusional as blaming my parents when I sneeze after getting pollen in my nose.
Oh, and by the way, she enjoyed it and she was kind enough to return the favor.
-
any lawyer worth his weight in water should be able to show this was not the intent of the law.
Yeah, good luck with that.
We must save the children.
In fact the MAJORITY of images in child porn prosecutions are images like these. Self-photos, or simple nudes or partial nudity or even fully-clothed images that the prosecutor decides arouse him, or even drawings and computer-generated graphics. Oh, and don't forget the images of adults who look underage, those can be prosecuted as kiddyporn too.
Just remember never ever to criticize any kiddyporn law. Anyone who complains about kiddyporn law is a witch and must be burned at the stake. Anyone who opposes passing new and more expansive kiddyporn laws is a witch and must be burned at the stake.
-