The DMCA seems to contains the seeds of a very dangerous concept - that of requiring credentials to perform research into cryptography. My position is that anyone who cares to has a right to perform "research" and to publicize the results. To limit research to guild members is incredibly offensive. Any thoughts or comments?
Personally I feel very strongly that legislation banning or regulating reverse engineering is wrong in the moral sense. Scientists, mathemeticians and students of literature reverse engineer nature and the human mind. Reverse engineering a few man-made items seems to me to be part of the same pursuit of curiosity. Would you care to comment?
Re:no matter what anyone says...
on
Lineo Frees CP/M
·
· Score: 1
I still like DOS too, I just wish it was a protected mode flat memory model OS with multitasking. Oh! that's Linux right?
It is only a matter of time before people begin reverse engineering these things. They probably all use standard ARM, MIPS and DSP processors. Open source versions will be available. As for the DMCA - fuck it with a pointed stick - it's bad law, overreaching and oppressive. Documents and code can be spread so quickly that the idea of stopping it is ludicrous. The reverse engineers at greatest risk are those who want credit for their work - so be humble for the moment.
On a slightly divergent note, I saw that the Jim Carrey Grinch movie has made ~$143 million in the six days since its consumer release. Now I ask you, where is all of this piracy that the MPAA has been crying crocodile tears about? Just wait until Harry Potter is out on disc.
I know I'm a bit out of date respondin sooooo late but if a CD will play in an audio system can't you connect the spdif to your sound card and get the data that way? I know it's slow but it lets the audio player do the TOC and Reed-Soloman stuff.
Everyone is still a bit wobbly after the 911 attacks. In this wobbly state the majority of people have bought the fallacious idea that decreased freedom leads to increased security. Even though we have not had any significant attacks since the anthrax mailings those who have made this massive power-grab ( Ashcroft et al ) via the USA PATRIOT act and this recent little addendum have done their best to keep everyone in a wobbly state so that few people would dare to criticize their coup-in-the-works. There will come a time when their crying wolf no longer inspires the fear it has recently and the climate for questioning their overreaching and reversing it will improve. My worry is that a Republican stacked Supreme court could put us in a horrible position as regards rocovering ou lost civil rights. Therein lies the real danger.
Is this question relevant to the current topic - I don't know, maybe.
Could someone who has followed the path and suffered explain to me how you finagle the required technical references to do things like work on a FreeBIOS project, write an ATI TVOut module or write a SoundBlaster driver for Linux?
Motherboard companies, Chipset vendors, graphics card vendors, sound card vendors, they all seem to be reluctant to release technical documents except to large OEMs.
Doesn't this hamper Linus development?
Doesn't this guarantee that Linux support will always lag the rest of the world ( MSWin )?
Isn't this almost as bad as Microsoft's restrictive licensing agreements?
Or am I just imagining that I can't get easy access to these documents?
However this case turns out there are some things that will need to be done. Well-funded Copyright Owners will be going after ISPs to block certain ports or types of traffic. In order to fight this it will be necessary to devise P2P systems that :
Break exchanges into small pieces and encrypt them so that the nature of the exchanges is not easily known
Use anonymity methods to thwart tracking
Provide methods of advertising and negotiating an exchange that protects the identity of the potential participants and protects them from sting operations.
Add dynamic port allocation and tunnels through well known-ports to the repertoire.
While the expressive nature of source code has just been affirmed by the court I think we should note that the functional nature of compiled source code can still be regulated.
I'm suspicious of WinXP and other versions for that matter. I'm suspicious that even though the SSSCA seems to have been put to bed for the moment that assaults on our systems are yet to be devised.
So far the privacy of your own home is almost intact but this will be an ongoing game.
Now, currently if I write cryptographic code that I place under GPL or in the public domain I am required to notify BXA regarding the nature of the code and the URL from which it is available.
If source code is truly speech and the 1st Ammendment rights trump commercial rights and national security then the BXA notification requirement amounts to prior restraint.
Why do I feel that we won't see this tested in a substantial way so that potential prosecution for violation of the notification requirements can retain its big stick value against little guys who like to share troublesome code with the big wide world?
/*
Well, I know you were being humorous, but the point wasn't about errors that weren't happening, but about errors that *were* happening that the developer assumed would never happen.
*/
Well, sure, I was just phrasing things that way because I've lost count of the number of times I've inherited code with a conditional block for detecting and handling an error condition that simply contained a comment like :
/* this shouldn't happen */
Part of my standard procedure for handling incoming Other People's Code is to grep for :
of handling errors that should never happen? You just double the size of your code, cause schedules to be missed, make maintenance more difficult and increase the probability of a grotesque coding error. I expected more macho stuff from the slashdot audience, not namby pamby whimpering! Sheesh! Welcome the the real world, get a thicker skin man!
8)
On a serious note : I've written commercial and non-commercial code. Sometimes I'm obsessive about completeness, sometimes I'm pragmatic. No point in generalizing about OSS vs. commercial.
Maybe someone here can help : I may be doing something stupid but I can't get any technical datasheets from the AMD site for things like FLASH, CPUs, Chipsets. It appears that I need to contact AMD and go for some sort of NDA...
I have the feeling that this is what is going on at the airlines : a private agent, the airline, is acting as a proxy for illegal searches by law enforcement. This is done in the name of safety but the net effect of our travels being logged and provided to any LEA that asks is an illegal search. It pisses me off, since there are safety measures that would be effective that would not require this intrusion into my privacy.
Your words :
> first off, most OSS doesn't fit the bill of
> digital device.
>
> Secondly, what is stopping you from
> implimenting AES, or whatever it is called,
> in your programs. Certainly the governments
> own standard will be certified.
>
> You are as bad as main stream media at using
> obviously inflamitory, and unsubstantiated
> conclusions in the text of a story to increase
> page hoits to increase revenues.
From the draft bill :
(3) INTERACTIVE DIGITAL DEVICE. -- The term interactive digital device" means any machine, device, product, software, or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software, or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form.
I object to the idea that my computer or SW must operate in the company of SW or HW not of my own choosing. This is an electronic Pearl Harbor, a binary Nazi occupation, a digital coup. So fuck you, fuck Hollings and fuck anyone else who approves of this dangerous authoritarian crap.
Pardon my language - I'm usually more civilized - but this sort of thing, even as a proposal, is flat-out intolerable.
are two different things.
What will be is an intrusive system backed up by lawyers and men with snooping equipment and guns.
What should be are proprietary systems for contents delivery and no interference with general purpose systems.
Kill the SSSCA and all of its progeny.
Instead of removing power when you hit your panic button you start a series of RAM tests. Begin with multiple simple overwrites of 0, F, 5, A and then move on to walking 1's and walking 0's and pseudorandom data.
The bandwidth is high, this should preceed pretty quickly.
I think you're missing something : the likelihood of powering passenger aircraft with H2 Fuel cells is about, approximately, roughly...nil.
Hydrogen as a fuel? Sure for a turbine engine.
Fuel storage?
Highly compressed gas? Maybe.
Cryogenic Liquid? More likely.
As metallic hydrides? Not Sure, sounds heavy.
I think that a cryogenic liquid H2 fuel would have lowered the temperatures reached inside the structures, maybe avoiding the collapses. Is it "safe" or even desirable? Probably not.
1) I think researchers have determined that the shell of the Hindeburg was to blame for the disaster, not the H2.
2) If a hydrogen powered jet is practical I think it would have been less destructive than the deisel fueled ones that hit the WTC.
My reasoning is fairly straightforward :
A gaseous fuel would probably disperse much more rapidly and over a wider area than the deisel fuel did. We probably would have seen a much larger flame zone outside the builing as a result. Hydrogen flames would probably be less visible - more pale blue than orange and yellow.
I think the destructive force would have been less because less fuel would have remained in the building to burn and heat the structure. If I recall several experts have said that prolonged high temperatures weakened the steel in the buildings.
So... the fire and explosions would have been extreme but probably not as long-lasting. It still would have been a disaster just not a catastrophe.
Slashdot Mirror
The DMCA seems to contains the seeds of a very dangerous concept - that of requiring credentials to perform research into cryptography. My position is that anyone who cares to has a right to perform "research" and to publicize the results. To limit research to guild members is incredibly offensive. Any thoughts or comments?
Personally I feel very strongly that legislation banning or regulating reverse engineering is wrong in the moral sense. Scientists, mathemeticians and students of literature reverse engineer nature and the human mind. Reverse engineering a few man-made items seems to me to be part of the same pursuit of curiosity. Would you care to comment?
I still like DOS too, I just wish it was a protected mode flat memory model OS with multitasking. Oh! that's Linux right?
Try a non-graphical installation of Linux.
It is only a matter of time before people begin reverse engineering these things. They probably all use standard ARM, MIPS and DSP processors. Open source versions will be available. As for the DMCA - fuck it with a pointed stick - it's bad law, overreaching and oppressive. Documents and code can be spread so quickly that the idea of stopping it is ludicrous. The reverse engineers at greatest risk are those who want credit for their work - so be humble for the moment.
On a slightly divergent note, I saw that the Jim Carrey Grinch movie has made ~$143 million in the six days since its consumer release. Now I ask you, where is all of this piracy that the MPAA has been crying crocodile tears about? Just wait until Harry Potter is out on disc.
I know I'm a bit out of date respondin sooooo late but if a CD will play in an audio system can't you connect the spdif to your sound card and get the data that way? I know it's slow but it lets the audio player do the TOC and Reed-Soloman stuff.
Everyone is still a bit wobbly after the 911 attacks. In this wobbly state the majority of people have bought the fallacious idea that decreased freedom leads to increased security. Even though we have not had any significant attacks since the anthrax mailings those who have made this massive power-grab ( Ashcroft et al ) via the USA PATRIOT act and this recent little addendum have done their best to keep everyone in a wobbly state so that few people would dare to criticize their coup-in-the-works. There will come a time when their crying wolf no longer inspires the fear it has recently and the climate for questioning their overreaching and reversing it will improve. My worry is that a Republican stacked Supreme court could put us in a horrible position as regards rocovering ou lost civil rights. Therein lies the real danger.
> If I didn't know better, I would say that you
> were trying to start up the digital equivilant
> of a terrorist organization.
Now, now, now. Would it make you feel any better if we called it a "Circle of Friends" instead?
The electronic pearl harbor is not an attack on our infrastructure but rather the total loss of privacy in our records and our communications.
Is this question relevant to the current topic - I don't know, maybe.
Could someone who has followed the path and suffered explain to me how you finagle the required technical references to do things like work on a FreeBIOS project, write an ATI TVOut module or write a SoundBlaster driver for Linux?
Motherboard companies, Chipset vendors, graphics card vendors, sound card vendors, they all seem to be reluctant to release technical documents except to large OEMs.
Doesn't this hamper Linus development?
Doesn't this guarantee that Linux support will always lag the rest of the world ( MSWin )?
Isn't this almost as bad as Microsoft's restrictive licensing agreements?
Or am I just imagining that I can't get easy access to these documents?
?
However this case turns out there are some things that will need to be done. Well-funded Copyright Owners will be going after ISPs to block certain ports or types of traffic. In order to fight this it will be necessary to devise P2P systems that :
Break exchanges into small pieces and encrypt them so that the nature of the exchanges is not easily known
Use anonymity methods to thwart tracking
Provide methods of advertising and negotiating an exchange that protects the identity of the potential participants and protects them from sting operations.
Add dynamic port allocation and tunnels through well known-ports to the repertoire.
Organize trading groups into cells
IOW : it's war, time to get smart.
These are the reasons this paranoid rambler sees behind the slap on the wrist.
Export licensing being the leverage.
SNOOPER-ready OS being the prize.
An essentially world-wide monopoly on PC operating systems means only one access point to work with ( coerce ).
While the expressive nature of source code has just been affirmed by the court I think we should note that the functional nature of compiled source code can still be regulated.
I'm suspicious of WinXP and other versions for that matter. I'm suspicious that even though the SSSCA seems to have been put to bed for the moment that assaults on our systems are yet to be devised.
So far the privacy of your own home is almost intact but this will be an ongoing game.
Encouraged but still paranoid.
Now, currently if I write cryptographic code that I place under GPL or in the public domain I am required to notify BXA regarding the nature of the code and the URL from which it is available.
If source code is truly speech and the 1st Ammendment rights trump commercial rights and national security then the BXA notification requirement amounts to prior restraint.
Why do I feel that we won't see this tested in a substantial way so that potential prosecution for violation of the notification requirements can retain its big stick value against little guys who like to share troublesome code with the big wide world?
Suspicious in CA
/*
Well, I know you were being humorous, but the point wasn't about errors that weren't happening, but about errors that *were* happening that the developer assumed would never happen.
*/
Well, sure, I was just phrasing things that way because I've lost count of the number of times I've inherited code with a conditional block for detecting and handling an error condition that simply contained a comment like :
/* this shouldn't happen */
Part of my standard procedure for handling incoming Other People's Code is to grep for :
kluge, kludge, hack, temporary, later, fix
You get the picture.
of handling errors that should never happen? You just double the size of your code, cause schedules to be missed, make maintenance more difficult and increase the probability of a grotesque coding error. I expected more macho stuff from the slashdot audience, not namby pamby whimpering! Sheesh! Welcome the the real world, get a thicker skin man!
8)
On a serious note : I've written commercial and non-commercial code. Sometimes I'm obsessive about completeness, sometimes I'm pragmatic. No point in generalizing about OSS vs. commercial.
> BTW, What happend to Bill Gates the 1st and 2nd? > Heh.
>
Obsoleted before release.
Maybe someone here can help : I may be doing something stupid but I can't get any technical datasheets from the AMD site for things like FLASH, CPUs, Chipsets. It appears that I need to contact AMD and go for some sort of NDA...
I have the feeling that this is what is going on at the airlines : a private agent, the airline, is acting as a proxy for illegal searches by law enforcement. This is done in the name of safety but the net effect of our travels being logged and provided to any LEA that asks is an illegal search. It pisses me off, since there are safety measures that would be effective that would not require this intrusion into my privacy.
Learn to read numbnutz!
Your words :
> first off, most OSS doesn't fit the bill of
> digital device.
>
> Secondly, what is stopping you from
> implimenting AES, or whatever it is called,
> in your programs. Certainly the governments
> own standard will be certified.
>
> You are as bad as main stream media at using
> obviously inflamitory, and unsubstantiated
> conclusions in the text of a story to increase
> page hoits to increase revenues.
From the draft bill :
(3) INTERACTIVE DIGITAL DEVICE. -- The term interactive digital device" means any machine, device, product, software, or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software, or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form.
I object to the idea that my computer or SW must operate in the company of SW or HW not of my own choosing. This is an electronic Pearl Harbor, a binary Nazi occupation, a digital coup. So fuck you, fuck Hollings and fuck anyone else who approves of this dangerous authoritarian crap.
Pardon my language - I'm usually more civilized - but this sort of thing, even as a proposal, is flat-out intolerable.
Coniine
Will have to use more advanced techniques to negotiate transfers... http://vip.poly.edu/mehdi/papers/summary/The%20Coc aine%20Auction%20Protocol.htm
are two different things. What will be is an intrusive system backed up by lawyers and men with snooping equipment and guns. What should be are proprietary systems for contents delivery and no interference with general purpose systems. Kill the SSSCA and all of its progeny.
> RAM Remanence
Not a problem.
To begin with, analysis is very difficult.
So...
Instead of removing power when you hit your panic button you start a series of RAM tests. Begin with multiple simple overwrites of 0, F, 5, A and then move on to walking 1's and walking 0's and pseudorandom data.
The bandwidth is high, this should preceed pretty quickly.
End of remanence problem.
Sarcasm passes you by then? You're so obtuse. Go look it up.
They're obviously intending to aid and abet terrorists.
I think you're missing something : the likelihood of powering passenger aircraft with H2 Fuel cells is about, approximately, roughly...nil. Hydrogen as a fuel? Sure for a turbine engine. Fuel storage? Highly compressed gas? Maybe. Cryogenic Liquid? More likely. As metallic hydrides? Not Sure, sounds heavy. I think that a cryogenic liquid H2 fuel would have lowered the temperatures reached inside the structures, maybe avoiding the collapses. Is it "safe" or even desirable? Probably not.
1) I think researchers have determined that the shell of the Hindeburg was to blame for the disaster, not the H2.
... the fire and explosions would have been extreme but probably not as long-lasting. It still would have been a disaster just not a catastrophe.
2) If a hydrogen powered jet is practical I think it would have been less destructive than the deisel fueled ones that hit the WTC.
My reasoning is fairly straightforward :
A gaseous fuel would probably disperse much more rapidly and over a wider area than the deisel fuel did. We probably would have seen a much larger flame zone outside the builing as a result. Hydrogen flames would probably be less visible - more pale blue than orange and yellow.
I think the destructive force would have been less because less fuel would have remained in the building to burn and heat the structure. If I recall several experts have said that prolonged high temperatures weakened the steel in the buildings.
So