Also, while TCPA requires that it be user-disableable, I don't know whether Palladium does.
From the articles I just read, looks like MS may be doing Palladium specifically to do an end-run around the limitations placed on them in TCPA by the other members.
There are multiple TCPA key-signers. I'm interested to know who, exactly, other than Microsoft, can sign software.
If this is a Microsoft-only thing, it's pretty obvious what their goals are.
Hmm. This is interesting. I've been going on what I know about TCPA, and just assumed that the Palladium people had been building on it. Evidently not.
Palladium, then, is more nasty and MS-specific. Hmm....
There also was all sorts of problems with the election that the media dug up, but there were on both sides, and not that severe. The Bush elections aren't anything like killing off political opponents or simply openly buying votes, or throwing out the results of an election because they went against you.
That's not what I was saying. I was in no way implying that Palladium is equivalent to Nazisim
That's not what I was saying either.
A:B::C:D means that the relationship of A to B is the same as that of C to D. I was saying that a person being marched off to a death camp is a much more reasonable indicator of another person being marched off to a death camp than an optional, disableable copy protection scheme being standardized is to thinking that Linux users will be classified as terrorists.
However, in a similar fashion if you say you aren't interested in opposing Palladium just because it currently is optional, then when the day comes that enough people are using it and it's made mandatory it will be too late to do anything about it.
It won't be made mandatory from a legislative perspective. Windows software could require it tomorrow if it wanted to -- I don't care one way or another about that. It doesn't affect me, and from a pragmatic standpoint, it doesn't affect Windows users. You can already make copy protection that's enough of a PITA that people won't bypass it. Have critical chunks of the application run as remote servlets.
AFAIK, MS is only going to make Palladium optional to begin with because they know they couldn't get away with forcing it on everyone all at once. Do you know otherwise? I could be mistaken on this.
Yes. I know one of the people that's fairly influential who's involved with TCPA. Microsoft is big, but it's dwarfed by the amount of power that's agreeing to sign on with TCPA. No way in hell would the TCPA members have agreed to required TCPA. It would have let the few corporations authorized to sign code have everyone else in the TCPA by the balls.
Also, hardware manufacturers don't really care whether you're working with illegal content or not. In the case of CDR/CDRW drives and hard drives, the mp3/divx boom has been extremely profitable -- *the* profit leader for the last few years. They do have significant benefit in producing an "industry agreed-upon DRM standard" so that the media industry can't force them (via leglislation) to put whatever expensive DRM method they prefer into their hardware.
Oh, I know what the datasheets say about Seagate's U-series.:-) I just want to see what happens in the real world, which no engineering stress test can do a complete job of modeling.
Group A marched to death camps:Group B marched to death camps::Optional, disableable copy protection schemes:Linux users being branded terrorists and being arrested by the government?
Just out of curiosity, why do you care which OS you're using while playing games? Except for a few rare ones, most games fill up your whole screen and wrap you in their own environment. You can't see or interact with the OS, so you basically can't tell the difference between the two (unless you're going on purely ideological grounds -- "I won't use Windows because doing so contradicts my system of ethics" would make sense).
Barring some major architectural changes, I'm strongly suspecting that eventually email is going to be an opt-in service, where each user has a whitelist of people allowed to email him, just as some messaging clients do today.
Might this be a sign that the early DVD units provided by both companies were just not able to handle the environments in which they were placed...?
This might be a sign that DVD *drives* don't cope well with being placed in a dusty, dirty, lint-filled environment and then being fed scratched up disks with sticky junk all over them. I don't know if I'd blame the X-Box or PS2 in particular.
I wanna know how long the X-Box hard drive lifetime is. It's going to be a real irritation when users start losing them.
I'd have to read the spec again to be sure, but I don't believe that you need to disable TCPA (TCPA is the hardware bit -- Palladium is just the software support in Windows, and has also been (unfortunately) used to refer to the system as a whole) to use a non-TCPA OS. You just won't have the ability to use TCPA to get access to some data -- TCPA is effectively "not enabled" unless both the BIOS has it enabled and the OS is trying to use it.
I said I think it would be *interesting*. Not that it would be "useful for evaluating the worth of a poster's comments". Slashdot is a tech forum -- it's interesting to see what techies use to browse the Web. It's be interesting to see how quickly techies upgrade to the latest browsers.
...Apple will have to make a competing implementation, or else you'll find your precious lickable G4 unable to run an increasing number of things.
After all the time Apple's spent doing their own thing despite exactly this being true -- massive compatibility issues with the rest of the PC market -- you honestly think that TCPA will drive them back into the flock of sheep? Give me a break.
These TCPA companies are so concerned with the wants and needs of consumer. Long live the free fucking market.
It does live on.
Suppose someone comes up with truly unstoppable, unbreakable DRM. (It sure as hell isn't TCPA unless the deadline gets pushed way the hell back. Hardware manufacturers are *not* used to, and many engineers are not inclined to lose sleep over implementing TCPA securely.) Then it just means that consumers have to pay for a given product. If a product costs too much...then guess what? No one busy it, the company goes out of business. Goods priced at zero will still have a benefit, and if that's really what the consumer wants, it'll be what the consumer ends up getting.
Slashdot Mirror
You cannot fake transactions using just client-side code
Yeah?
How do you think journalling/otherwise atomically updated filesystems work?
That doesn't mean that you can do it *efficiently*, but you can do it.
Of course, Real and WMA are decidedly propriatary as well, though at least there's free Real support on Linux.
ACE is nice for big systems.
But it's also way overkill for small stuff. It's a whole distributed framework, not a wrapper around pthreads.
No, the way Apple killed the clones was by denying them ROM licenses. It wasn't the OS -- it was, in fact, proprietary hardware.
This is *exactly* what LVM is designed to do. Multiple physical volumes comprising one logical volume. Follow up on your own suggestion. :-)
Also, while TCPA requires that it be user-disableable, I don't know whether Palladium does.
From the articles I just read, looks like MS may be doing Palladium specifically to do an end-run around the limitations placed on them in TCPA by the other members.
There are multiple TCPA key-signers. I'm interested to know who, exactly, other than Microsoft, can sign software.
If this is a Microsoft-only thing, it's pretty obvious what their goals are.
Hmm. This is interesting. I've been going on what I know about TCPA, and just assumed that the Palladium people had been building on it. Evidently not.
Palladium, then, is more nasty and MS-specific. Hmm....
There also was all sorts of problems with the election that the media dug up, but there were on both sides, and not that severe. The Bush elections aren't anything like killing off political opponents or simply openly buying votes, or throwing out the results of an election because they went against you.
That's not what I was saying. I was in no way implying that Palladium is equivalent to Nazisim
That's not what I was saying either.
A:B::C:D means that the relationship of A to B is the same as that of C to D. I was saying that a person being marched off to a death camp is a much more reasonable indicator of another person being marched off to a death camp than an optional, disableable copy protection scheme being standardized is to thinking that Linux users will be classified as terrorists.
However, in a similar fashion if you say you aren't interested in opposing Palladium just because it currently is optional, then when the day comes that enough people are using it and it's made mandatory it will be too late to do anything about it.
It won't be made mandatory from a legislative perspective. Windows software could require it tomorrow if it wanted to -- I don't care one way or another about that. It doesn't affect me, and from a pragmatic standpoint, it doesn't affect Windows users. You can already make copy protection that's enough of a PITA that people won't bypass it. Have critical chunks of the application run as remote servlets.
AFAIK, MS is only going to make Palladium optional to begin with because they know they couldn't get away with forcing it on everyone all at once. Do you know otherwise? I could be mistaken on this.
Yes. I know one of the people that's fairly influential who's involved with TCPA. Microsoft is big, but it's dwarfed by the amount of power that's agreeing to sign on with TCPA. No way in hell would the TCPA members have agreed to required TCPA. It would have let the few corporations authorized to sign code have everyone else in the TCPA by the balls.
Also, hardware manufacturers don't really care whether you're working with illegal content or not. In the case of CDR/CDRW drives and hard drives, the mp3/divx boom has been extremely profitable -- *the* profit leader for the last few years. They do have significant benefit in producing an "industry agreed-upon DRM standard" so that the media industry can't force them (via leglislation) to put whatever expensive DRM method they prefer into their hardware.
Imagine what would happen if voters had real free choice of who they wanted in office.
You don't have a Sen right because there are *other interested parties* like your next door neighbor.
You *do* live in a country that at least has indirection elections that are fairly free from corruption.
Keep at it! ...finish getting rid of those outside irritations and band cell phones entirely!
YACH -- Yet Another Cell Hater
Oh, I know what the datasheets say about Seagate's U-series. :-) I just want to see what happens in the real world, which no engineering stress test can do a complete job of modeling.
We'll have easy to manage stuff. How long do you spend managing your IM client's whitelist? Manually writing procmail scripts takes much longer...
And I could see a web of trust, if not as peer-based as PGP, at least a hierarchical one.
Group A marched to death camps:Group B marched to death camps::Optional, disableable copy protection schemes:Linux users being branded terrorists and being arrested by the government?
I don't buy it.
Just out of curiosity, why do you care which OS you're using while playing games? Except for a few rare ones, most games fill up your whole screen and wrap you in their own environment. You can't see or interact with the OS, so you basically can't tell the difference between the two (unless you're going on purely ideological grounds -- "I won't use Windows because doing so contradicts my system of ethics" would make sense).
Anyone anywhere spamming Californians anywhere.
Though I think it's a safe bet to say that it doesn't cover it.
Barring some major architectural changes, I'm strongly suspecting that eventually email is going to be an opt-in service, where each user has a whitelist of people allowed to email him, just as some messaging clients do today.
Might this be a sign that the early DVD units provided by both companies were just not able to handle the environments in which they were placed...?
This might be a sign that DVD *drives* don't cope well with being placed in a dusty, dirty, lint-filled environment and then being fed scratched up disks with sticky junk all over them. I don't know if I'd blame the X-Box or PS2 in particular.
I wanna know how long the X-Box hard drive lifetime is. It's going to be a real irritation when users start losing them.
just wait 'til big brother comes for you because "only hackers/terrorists/child pornographers use non-palladium hardware/software".
Just a smidgen of slippery slope here, perhaps?
I'd have to read the spec again to be sure, but I don't believe that you need to disable TCPA (TCPA is the hardware bit -- Palladium is just the software support in Windows, and has also been (unfortunately) used to refer to the system as a whole) to use a non-TCPA OS. You just won't have the ability to use TCPA to get access to some data -- TCPA is effectively "not enabled" unless both the BIOS has it enabled and the OS is trying to use it.
On the same note, why do you oppose it?
I said I think it would be *interesting*. Not that it would be "useful for evaluating the worth of a poster's comments". Slashdot is a tech forum -- it's interesting to see what techies use to browse the Web. It's be interesting to see how quickly techies upgrade to the latest browsers.
...unless you're an admin, especially if you're are poking at the package system.
He probably just wants to have Debian to "have Debian".
AMD and Intel are both doing exactly the same thing -- letting TCPA (and hence Palladium) be BIOS-disableable. It's a required part of the TCPA spec.
This is not news. Both AMD and Intel are supporting TCPA, both let you disable it.
...Apple will have to make a competing implementation, or else you'll find your precious lickable G4 unable to run an increasing number of things.
After all the time Apple's spent doing their own thing despite exactly this being true -- massive compatibility issues with the rest of the PC market -- you honestly think that TCPA will drive them back into the flock of sheep? Give me a break.
These TCPA companies are so concerned with the wants and needs of consumer. Long live the free fucking market.
It does live on.
Suppose someone comes up with truly unstoppable, unbreakable DRM. (It sure as hell isn't TCPA unless the deadline gets pushed way the hell back. Hardware manufacturers are *not* used to, and many engineers are not inclined to lose sleep over implementing TCPA securely.) Then it just means that consumers have to pay for a given product. If a product costs too much...then guess what? No one busy it, the company goes out of business. Goods priced at zero will still have a benefit, and if that's really what the consumer wants, it'll be what the consumer ends up getting.