AFAIK, intel, and probably also other silicon companies, used that law as a rule of thumb to base R&D planning on.
I mean that they set a goal, for example, we want our CPU 3 genererations ahead to be 200% faster, and we think that we can get the clock 150% faster by silicon and heat dissipation improvements, so we want the guys in the algorithms and CPU layout design to get those last 50% by that deadline.
They actually spent R&D budgets that way. This means they had to increase their R&D spending a lot, but they knew the competition would follow a similar plan.
The problem is that with DRM you have no way to "preserve the means of playing those records" as you say. Simply, because if the license server (or whatever means you have of getting decryption keys) is down (say, the company went under) there is no such means.
AFAIK, the patent is for the understanding of what does this gene do. This means that they probably pataented something like 'a method for predicting breast cancer in women based on identifing the gene...' and some more claims to license other fields.
Compression is not the worse 'attack' - as they are commonly called.
By definition any steganographic technique is removable by some attack (think about random noise in the same domain as the encoding), but some are quite good.
In any case, compression is not a major problem for any decent steganogram.
By the way, if you are willing to use one of several pictures, it is trivially easier to make the information unremovable. There are drawbacks though.
The main problem I see with this technology is that you can no long expect privacy in many situations - this means that privacy laws may no longer protect you from invasion to privacy in some of these situations.
A quick glean at the brochure clearly shows, that it is a full 49 bit system including memory and storage access.
The actual commands only use 12 bit blocks (more than one for most commands though) which are packed 4:1 into said words (the bit left is obviously used for parity).
"Parks is not affiliated with LucasFilms, Ltd., the maker of the Star Wars movies, but he has sought a relationship. Six months ago, he lost a contract bid to be the official licensed manufacturer of Star Wars light sabers to Master Replicas."
Can't people think on their own? Saying that something isn't prohibited by the constitution doesn't make it right nor wrong. It doesn't say anything.
The only question where the constitution is silent is whether the restriction of rights (in this case privacy) is the lesser of two evils (the other evil being not catching the 'not so law abiding'). Is it? Do we believe it to be so? Is the potential for abuse of power justified? Does the end justify the means?
That might be a good or bad thing, depending how you look at it:
If any small telco needs to create a secure repository, some will not be as secure as others... and privacy might be more compromised that it should according to the wiretap order (i.e. hackers accessing the wiretapped phone calls...)
OTOH, this is a kind of single point of failure I do not entirely like...
No, it would have made it possible for the OS (or an application) to know where it ran. It would not prevent a 'rouge' application or OS (e.g. Linux) from running.
Sometime soon, CPUs may enforce a Copy Protection compliant OS to run on them. It is possible - yes, it will be hackable, but forget about any opensource OS wide spread adoption when it happens.
there is software development and usage outside of the USA; the USA isn't the whole world. Free software won't just die out because corporatelisimo senators ban it in the USA.
But the US is trying to force it down the throats of the world through WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), WTO (World Trade Organization), etc. and the EU is already considering something similar, and besides, how many countries produce CPUs except the US?
Slashdot Mirror
So it was a self fulfilling prophesy.
I mean that they set a goal, for example, we want our CPU 3 genererations ahead to be 200% faster, and we think that we can get the clock 150% faster by silicon and heat dissipation improvements, so we want the guys in the algorithms and CPU layout design to get those last 50% by that deadline.
They actually spent R&D budgets that way. This means they had to increase their R&D spending a lot, but they knew the competition would follow a similar plan.
The problem is that with DRM you have no way to "preserve the means of playing those records" as you say. Simply, because if the license server (or whatever means you have of getting decryption keys) is down (say, the company went under) there is no such means.
input H + O
where do you think the carbon would come from to get CO or CO2?
You should get out water (H2O). You would reduce the oxygen level though.
And no, it doesn't take hydrogen out of the air, that's the fuel in the fuel cell.
That would require breaking the DRM, not simply ignoring it, this would clearly be a violation of the DMCA (in the US).
AFAIK, the patent is for the understanding of what does this gene do. This means that they probably pataented something like 'a method for predicting breast cancer in women based on identifing the gene...' and some more claims to license other fields.
Or even cooler, if they couldoverlay a non polorized image, you could have subtitles or annotations on a image, if you put on the proper glasses.
That's approximatly what the patent system was originally about.
IANAL but I think that if you provide a online service using GPLed software, it does not count as distribution or making deriviative work.
This means that anyone could make a closed source online game using such tools.
If I am correct this may either be a problem or a good thing (according to perspective).
By definition any steganographic technique is removable by some attack (think about random noise in the same domain as the encoding), but some are quite good.
In any case, compression is not a major problem for any decent steganogram.
By the way, if you are willing to use one of several pictures, it is trivially easier to make the information unremovable. There are drawbacks though.
The main problem I see with this technology is that you can no long expect privacy in many situations - this means that privacy laws may no longer protect you from invasion to privacy in some of these situations.
Why don't you just go after the companies who sold those things (or whoever bought them)?
The actual commands only use 12 bit blocks (more than one for most commands though) which are packed 4:1 into said words (the bit left is obviously used for parity).
"Parks is not affiliated with LucasFilms, Ltd., the maker of the Star Wars movies, but he has sought a relationship. Six months ago, he lost a contract bid to be the official licensed manufacturer of Star Wars light sabers to Master Replicas."
With a little tweaking I can move my virtual world Shadowrun campaign to the actual virtual world... Maybe spin out a MMRPG out of it...
Thanks.
Seattle - Remember who is their likely audience, MS workers, their families...
The only question where the constitution is silent is whether the restriction of rights (in this case privacy) is the lesser of two evils (the other evil being not catching the 'not so law abiding'). Is it? Do we believe it to be so? Is the potential for abuse of power justified? Does the end justify the means?
If any small telco needs to create a secure repository, some will not be as secure as others... and privacy might be more compromised that it should according to the wiretap order (i.e. hackers accessing the wiretapped phone calls...)
OTOH, this is a kind of single point of failure I do not entirely like...
Wasn't that in Canada? different laws?
No, it would have made it possible for the OS (or an application) to know where it ran. It would not prevent a 'rouge' application or OS (e.g. Linux) from running.
Sometime soon, CPUs may enforce a Copy Protection compliant OS to run on them.
It is possible - yes, it will be hackable, but forget about any opensource OS wide spread adoption when it happens.
But the US is trying to force it down the throats of the world through WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), WTO (World Trade Organization), etc. and the EU is already considering something similar, and besides, how many countries produce CPUs except the US?
It's so obvious that someone must have patented it though...
Oh, and there's always the DMCA...