No CAT Scan, MRI or Cancer drugs would have been invented without patents to give the inventors time to make their years of investment back by a period of exclusivity.
I call bullshit. I helped work on MRI in the early 1980's in a university
lab that was government funded. Likewise, I met someone at my university
who was working on CAT scans in the 1970's (I asked about his very large
stack of punch cards at the computer center). He was also government funded.
For both of these innovations, the early work was done with public funding.
Clearly both CAT scans and MRI were invented long before they were
patented. The early years of research to bring these inventions to
fruition were mainly funded by the taxpayers. Why should one
corporation get a monopoly on the fruits of this publicly funded
research long after the inventions were actually invented?
The actual answer is that the submarines have an antenna that reaches
into the air. The title implies that the video signals are sent
through sea water to submerged submarines. That is still impossible
to do in real-time. The bandwidth (either acoustic or electro-magnetic)
is just not available. The acoustic bandwidth is greater than the
electro-magnetic but it is still many orders of magnitude lower than
what is required for real-time video.
Hasn't YouTube figured it out? Sounds like Mega just needs a
pseudo-copyright infringement tool to scan what's submitted.
All the content on the new Mega site is encrypted and the site
owners don't have the decryption keys to the encrypted content. Without
the keys they can't do automated scanning like YouTube does.
Other site(s) are publishing links to Mega content with decryption
keys embedded. I assume these are what are used for the take-down notices.
Since each take-down notice includes the decryption key, it allows Mega
to see the content and verify that it should be taken down.
The whole point of Mega is that they don't have to automatically scan
all the content.
Replacing the keys doesn't require reflashing the firmware,
you just need go into the UEFI setup screen and add or delete
the keys you're interested in. If the key gets compromised,
you just go to the setup, add the new key, boot and update
the bootloader and go into the setup and remove the old key...
This is true for Secure Boot where the user/owner
has control of the keys but it is untrue of Restricted
Boot which is what the OP was talking about. In fact
their subject line (which you overwrote) was:
Restricted Boot by definition insecure
Their point, of course, is that with Restricted Boot
the user, by definition, does not have control of the keys
so has no access to the setup screens you talk about.
This is the essence of the problem with Restricted Boot
they were pointing out. Your response makes no sense.
The essence of DRM is that user is considered to be the
attacker. The FSF endorses Secure Boot only when the
user has control of the keys so the user is obviously
not the attacker in that case.
Secure Boot is only a form of DRM when the user/owner does
not have control of the keys. This is what we should fight
against. Categorizing all forms of Secure Boot as "DRM"
is wrong both technically and politically.
Being categorically against Secure Boot is akin to be
categorically against digital encryption and signing in
general just because they are tools that are sometimes
used to create DRM. DRM is bad. Secure Boot without
user/owner key control can make it worse. The FOSS
community should embrace Secure Boot but fight for key
control.
Used properly, Secure Boot will make FOSS systems more secure.
It is much better to add security measures *before* they are
needed rather than after. We have generally been ahead of the
curve security-wise for decades. Embracing Secure Boot (with
user key control) will help us stay ahead of the curve. If
we instead shun Secure Boot there is a very real danger that
we will lag behind.
I was going to mod you up but then I read your final sentence:
We need some form of DRM system that the user can manage
to protect their system from physical access or general boot
exploits.
Secure Boot is *not* (necessarily) DRM. It all comes down to
who controls the keys. If the owner controls the
keys then Secure Boot is a good thing. If the owner does not
control the keys then Secure Boot is a form of DRM and it is
a bad thing. If the user/owner has control and can use Secure
Boot to protect their system then it is not DRM.
The big danger of Secure Boot is that, unlike conventional
DRM, it can be actually be made secure. This could then
be leveraged to make unbreakable DRM. This is the looming
threat of Secure Boot.
I agree with you that Secure Boot can be a good thing. IMO
the FOSS community should embrace Secure Boot, provided that
the user/owner has control of the keys. IMO the fight should
not be over whether to use Secure Boot or not, the fight
should be over who has control of the keys. This is an
easier battle for us to win because there are simple real-world
analogies for key control that the general public can understand.
In
Omega v. Costco it was already decided that there is no first sale
doctrine for goods manufactured outside of the USA. The case went to
the Supreme Court two years ago but the court was split 4-4 (Kagan recused
herself) so the lower (9th District) Court decision stood.
There already no first sale doctrine for foreign goods in California
and the rest of the 9th District.
... ECC stands for Error CORRECTING Code. It requires (from memory) 3 bits per
byte if you want to be able to correct all one-bit errors (as a by-product it
lets you detect all two-bit errors).
It depends on what your block size is. You are assuming an 8-bit block size.
ECC RAM uses a 64-bit block size and requires just one extra bit per byte
(nine bits per byte instead of the standard 8) just like the GP said.
2) The report merely speculates that futures trading was the
cause of oil price increases back then. I realize it is long but you
seemed to gloss over the first word in the title which is Perhaps.
3) The report is actually an alarmist advertisement for a
book from the Centre for Research on Globalization. The
founder of this group has been on the list of "Canada's nuttiest
professors, those whose absurdity stands head and shoulders above
their colleagues."
4) Even if the report were accurate and timely, it does not
refute peak oil. Simple supply-and-demand markets are unable to
deal intelligently with limited resources. One of the basic rationales
of futures markets is to deal more intelligently with
such limitations. IOW, a rise in futures prices is
precisely what is supposed to happen when it is clear that a resource
will run dry in the future.
What violation? There is no evidence of any GPL violation here.
Falsely charging someone with violating the GPL when they are not
is a common anti-GPL FUD tactic. You have even gone so far as
to claim they violate the spirit of the GPL because they choose
to charge for their software and don't also have a spiel about
"free as in freedom".
When I said DOSBox Turbo was following the spirit of the GPL
it was in regard to their offer to send the source code after
you buy the app. Instead of conceding this point, you switched
topics to the fact that they charge money for the app, saying
that violated the spirit of the GPL. When I countered your
new argument you switched back to your original unfounded
claims that they are violating the GPL even after you tacitly
admitted there is no evidence of a violation besides conjecture
on your part.
There are plenty of people who are clearly violating both the
letter and the spirit of the GPL. If you are truly a friend
of the GPL and Free Software then go after them instead of
defending AC FUD here.
The DOSBox Turbo web page says that it is licensed under the GPL, and also has
a FAQ explaining why it is "not free". That does not seem like compliance with
the spirit of the GPL.
The GPL is not about "free as in beer" which is what you are complaining
about now. The GPL is about "free as in freedom".
It seems that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. People
erroneously complain that you have to give your software away for
free if you use the GPL. Now you are complaining that not
giving your software away for free is somehow not in the
spirit of the GPL.
It seems like you are just looking for an excuse to complain.
If you don't like the GPL, that's fine. Don't use it. Please
stop spreading and defending anti-GPL FUD.
I'm saying that DOSBox Turbo is in compliance with the spirit of
the GPL and as far as we know is also in compliance with the letter.
Please feel free to spend the $3.99 to find out if they are actually
in compliance with the letter or not. If not, do you really doubt
they would be willing to rectify this rather small detail?
The main point is that the DOSBox Turbo response does not appear
to be in conflict with the GPL. The submitter, Shifuimam, has
no cause for complaint against DOSBox Turbo.
It seems clear that the "DOSBox Turbo" distributor is not using 3(a)
Yet the fine summary said:
The developer of DOSBox Turbo is refusing to release the source for his application unless you pay the $3.99 to "buy" a license of it.
which **is** option 3(a) since the $3.99 refers to buying the app.
As I quoted before from the GPL-v2:
a) Accompany it [the app] with the complete corresponding
machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
or, [...]
More stupid anti-GPL FUD. It doesn't even make sense that you would
have to be responsible for the acts of others. I posted the actual
clause from the
GPL-v2 in a recent post above this one.
You took clause 3(b) completely out of context. Here is the full context
from GPL-v2:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and
2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code,
which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to
give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1
and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for
noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object
code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b
above.)
What emurphy42 said was correct. Clause 3(b) is an option, not an absolute
requirement like you made it seem. The suggestion by emurphy42 is an
equally viable option.
A Microsoft asked a Nokia to carry him across a river. The Nokia
refused because it was afraid of getting stung by the Microsoft.
But the clever Microsoft argued that if it stings the Nokia then
they would both drown. So the Nokia agrees and carries the
Microsoft into the river. Halfway across the Microsoft stings
the Nokia dooming them both. In its dying breath the Nokia asks
the Microsoft why it did such a thing. The Microsoft replies "it
is my nature".
[...] a juror is presumptively biased where
"she told the part truth that was useless, and held back the other part that had significance and value." Clark, 289 U.S. at 10-11
(juror "counted off a few [past jobs] and checked herself at the very point where the count, if completed, would be likely to bar her from the box");
see Dyer, 151 F.3d at 983.
IOW, stupidity or not, malice or not, the actions of the foreman, by
talking about an inconsequential lawsuit and omitting the consequential
one, demonstrate presumptive bias which is what Samsung's motion is about.
Exactly. "Radioactive material with half-life of 30 years not gone in 18 Monat, more at 11..."
TFS wrote:
... levels of caesium-137 have remained fixed at around 1,000 becquerels...
IOW, we would expect levels of caesium-137 (with a half-life of 30 years) to be slowly declining yet measurements show the levels have remained constant.
This is a puzzle.
I agree these are amazing pens. You can get very thin lines and they
come in a variety of colors. The ink is archival quality. The best
thing is the very slight scratchy feel of the tip on the paper.
They are not expensive. You should really give these a try.
And a lot of the stimulus money was in the form of loans to banks...
That was something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. That was the TARP
bailout. that was passed by a different president than the one
who proposed the stimulus package.
[...] the problem you miss is that now all those nations hold a tremendous
amount of American debt. What happens when the American economy implodes?
What you are referring to is exactly the "very bad situation" I was talking
about. By holding on tighter and tighter you are only making the
eventual implosion worse. If you are interested in a perspective from outside
the US I suggest Beyond the Age of Innocence: Rebuilding Trust Between
America and the World by Kishore Mahbubani.
Our government threw a trillion dollars at trying to bail out the deep water
American middle class is in, and the banks took that earmarked money, gave it
to one another as bonuses and hid it in foreign banks.
If you are referring to the stimulus then you are wrong. The
stimulus worked pretty much exactly like its proponents had
predicted it would. The problem wasn't money being funneled
off by evil bankers; the only problem was that politicians
neutered and watered down the stimulus in an attempt to damage
the economy for political gain.
If the original stimulus plan had passed or if even the first
watered down version passed then the US economy would be in much
better shape than it is in now. But even the highly watered
down stimulus package worked. When it was put into effect the
US economy was in free fall and was hemorrhaging jobs. The
stimulus stopped the bleeding but it wasn't large enough to
bring the economy back up to its previous levels.
Slashdot Mirror
No CAT Scan, MRI or Cancer drugs would have been invented without patents to give the inventors time to make their years of investment back by a period of exclusivity.
I call bullshit. I helped work on MRI in the early 1980's in a university lab that was government funded. Likewise, I met someone at my university who was working on CAT scans in the 1970's (I asked about his very large stack of punch cards at the computer center). He was also government funded. For both of these innovations, the early work was done with public funding.
Clearly both CAT scans and MRI were invented long before they were patented. The early years of research to bring these inventions to fruition were mainly funded by the taxpayers. Why should one corporation get a monopoly on the fruits of this publicly funded research long after the inventions were actually invented?
You seem to be saying that ordinary laws passed by Congress supersede the Constitution. This is just as disturbing as the OP's observation.
Well, technically it is possible - but you don't get much of a video stream with only a handful of bits per second.
We can do much better than a handful of bits per second with acoustics (yes, IAaUAE) but it is still not enough to watch the Superbowl in real-time.
How the Super Bowl Will Reach US Submarines
The actual answer is that the submarines have an antenna that reaches into the air. The title implies that the video signals are sent through sea water to submerged submarines. That is still impossible to do in real-time. The bandwidth (either acoustic or electro-magnetic) is just not available. The acoustic bandwidth is greater than the electro-magnetic but it is still many orders of magnitude lower than what is required for real-time video.
Hasn't YouTube figured it out? Sounds like Mega just needs a pseudo-copyright infringement tool to scan what's submitted.
All the content on the new Mega site is encrypted and the site owners don't have the decryption keys to the encrypted content. Without the keys they can't do automated scanning like YouTube does.
Other site(s) are publishing links to Mega content with decryption keys embedded. I assume these are what are used for the take-down notices. Since each take-down notice includes the decryption key, it allows Mega to see the content and verify that it should be taken down.
The whole point of Mega is that they don't have to automatically scan all the content.
No. You are wrong. You said:
Replacing the keys doesn't require reflashing the firmware, you just need go into the UEFI setup screen and add or delete the keys you're interested in. If the key gets compromised, you just go to the setup, add the new key, boot and update the bootloader and go into the setup and remove the old key ...
This is true for Secure Boot where the user/owner has control of the keys but it is untrue of Restricted Boot which is what the OP was talking about. In fact their subject line (which you overwrote) was:
Restricted Boot by definition insecure
Their point, of course, is that with Restricted Boot the user, by definition, does not have control of the keys so has no access to the setup screens you talk about. This is the essence of the problem with Restricted Boot they were pointing out. Your response makes no sense.
Being categorically against Secure Boot is akin to be categorically against digital encryption and signing in general just because they are tools that are sometimes used to create DRM. DRM is bad. Secure Boot without user/owner key control can make it worse. The FOSS community should embrace Secure Boot but fight for key control.
Used properly, Secure Boot will make FOSS systems more secure. It is much better to add security measures *before* they are needed rather than after. We have generally been ahead of the curve security-wise for decades. Embracing Secure Boot (with user key control) will help us stay ahead of the curve. If we instead shun Secure Boot there is a very real danger that we will lag behind.
I was going to mod you up but then I read your final sentence:
We need some form of DRM system that the user can manage to protect their system from physical access or general boot exploits.
Secure Boot is *not* (necessarily) DRM. It all comes down to who controls the keys. If the owner controls the keys then Secure Boot is a good thing. If the owner does not control the keys then Secure Boot is a form of DRM and it is a bad thing. If the user/owner has control and can use Secure Boot to protect their system then it is not DRM.
The big danger of Secure Boot is that, unlike conventional DRM, it can be actually be made secure. This could then be leveraged to make unbreakable DRM. This is the looming threat of Secure Boot.
I agree with you that Secure Boot can be a good thing. IMO the FOSS community should embrace Secure Boot, provided that the user/owner has control of the keys. IMO the fight should not be over whether to use Secure Boot or not, the fight should be over who has control of the keys. This is an easier battle for us to win because there are simple real-world analogies for key control that the general public can understand.
Thanks for the clarification and additional information. I was unaware of what happened after the Supreme Court split decision.
In Omega v. Costco it was already decided that there is no first sale doctrine for goods manufactured outside of the USA. The case went to the Supreme Court two years ago but the court was split 4-4 (Kagan recused herself) so the lower (9th District) Court decision stood.
There already no first sale doctrine for foreign goods in California and the rest of the 9th District.
... ECC stands for Error CORRECTING Code. It requires (from memory) 3 bits per byte if you want to be able to correct all one-bit errors (as a by-product it lets you detect all two-bit errors).
It depends on what your block size is. You are assuming an 8-bit block size. ECC RAM uses a 64-bit block size and requires just one extra bit per byte (nine bits per byte instead of the standard 8) just like the GP said.
1) The report you link to is over four years old.
2) The report merely speculates that futures trading was the cause of oil price increases back then. I realize it is long but you seemed to gloss over the first word in the title which is Perhaps.
3) The report is actually an alarmist advertisement for a book from the Centre for Research on Globalization. The founder of this group has been on the list of "Canada's nuttiest professors, those whose absurdity stands head and shoulders above their colleagues."
4) Even if the report were accurate and timely, it does not refute peak oil. Simple supply-and-demand markets are unable to deal intelligently with limited resources. One of the basic rationales of futures markets is to deal more intelligently with such limitations. IOW, a rise in futures prices is precisely what is supposed to happen when it is clear that a resource will run dry in the future.
Stop with the apologetics for GPL violations!
What violation? There is no evidence of any GPL violation here. Falsely charging someone with violating the GPL when they are not is a common anti-GPL FUD tactic. You have even gone so far as to claim they violate the spirit of the GPL because they choose to charge for their software and don't also have a spiel about "free as in freedom".
When I said DOSBox Turbo was following the spirit of the GPL it was in regard to their offer to send the source code after you buy the app. Instead of conceding this point, you switched topics to the fact that they charge money for the app, saying that violated the spirit of the GPL. When I countered your new argument you switched back to your original unfounded claims that they are violating the GPL even after you tacitly admitted there is no evidence of a violation besides conjecture on your part.
There are plenty of people who are clearly violating both the letter and the spirit of the GPL. If you are truly a friend of the GPL and Free Software then go after them instead of defending AC FUD here.
The DOSBox Turbo web page says that it is licensed under the GPL, and also has a FAQ explaining why it is "not free". That does not seem like compliance with the spirit of the GPL.
The GPL is not about "free as in beer" which is what you are complaining about now. The GPL is about "free as in freedom".
It seems that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. People erroneously complain that you have to give your software away for free if you use the GPL. Now you are complaining that not giving your software away for free is somehow not in the spirit of the GPL.
It seems like you are just looking for an excuse to complain. If you don't like the GPL, that's fine. Don't use it. Please stop spreading and defending anti-GPL FUD.
I'm saying that DOSBox Turbo is in compliance with the spirit of the GPL and as far as we know is also in compliance with the letter.
Please feel free to spend the $3.99 to find out if they are actually in compliance with the letter or not. If not, do you really doubt they would be willing to rectify this rather small detail?
The main point is that the DOSBox Turbo response does not appear to be in conflict with the GPL. The submitter, Shifuimam, has no cause for complaint against DOSBox Turbo.
Entrope claims:
It seems clear that the "DOSBox Turbo" distributor is not using 3(a)
Yet the fine summary said:
The developer of DOSBox Turbo is refusing to release the source for his application unless you pay the $3.99 to "buy" a license of it.
which **is** option 3(a) since the $3.99 refers to buying the app. As I quoted before from the GPL-v2:
a) Accompany it [the app] with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, [...]
More stupid anti-GPL FUD. It doesn't even make sense that you would have to be responsible for the acts of others. I posted the actual clause from the GPL-v2 in a recent post above this one.
FUD much?
You took clause 3(b) completely out of context. Here is the full context from GPL-v2:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
What emurphy42 said was correct. Clause 3(b) is an option, not an absolute requirement like you made it seem. The suggestion by emurphy42 is an equally viable option.
A Microsoft asked a Nokia to carry him across a river. The Nokia refused because it was afraid of getting stung by the Microsoft. But the clever Microsoft argued that if it stings the Nokia then they would both drown. So the Nokia agrees and carries the Microsoft into the river. Halfway across the Microsoft stings the Nokia dooming them both. In its dying breath the Nokia asks the Microsoft why it did such a thing. The Microsoft replies "it is my nature".
As Samsung explained:
[...] a juror is presumptively biased where "she told the part truth that was useless, and held back the other part that had significance and value." Clark, 289 U.S. at 10-11 (juror "counted off a few [past jobs] and checked herself at the very point where the count, if completed, would be likely to bar her from the box"); see Dyer, 151 F.3d at 983.
IOW, stupidity or not, malice or not, the actions of the foreman, by talking about an inconsequential lawsuit and omitting the consequential one, demonstrate presumptive bias which is what Samsung's motion is about.
AC wrote:
Exactly. "Radioactive material with half-life of 30 years not gone in 18 Monat, more at 11..."
TFS wrote:
... levels of caesium-137 have remained fixed at around 1,000 becquerels ...
IOW, we would expect levels of caesium-137 (with a half-life of 30 years) to be slowly declining yet measurements show the levels have remained constant. This is a puzzle.
link
+1
I agree these are amazing pens. You can get very thin lines and they come in a variety of colors. The ink is archival quality. The best thing is the very slight scratchy feel of the tip on the paper.
They are not expensive. You should really give these a try.
And a lot of the stimulus money was in the form of loans to banks ...
That was something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. That was the TARP bailout. that was passed by a different president than the one who proposed the stimulus package.
Here is a break down of the stimulus spending:
Individual Tax Credits $131.8B
Making Work Pay $104.4B
Tax Incentives for Businesses $32.6B
Energy Incentives $10.9B
Manufacturing & Economic Recovery, Infrastructure Refinancing, Other $7.3B
COBRA $3.7B
And so on. Money to banks is not on the list.
[...] the problem you miss is that now all those nations hold a tremendous amount of American debt. What happens when the American economy implodes?
What you are referring to is exactly the "very bad situation" I was talking about. By holding on tighter and tighter you are only making the eventual implosion worse. If you are interested in a perspective from outside the US I suggest Beyond the Age of Innocence: Rebuilding Trust Between America and the World by Kishore Mahbubani.
Our government threw a trillion dollars at trying to bail out the deep water American middle class is in, and the banks took that earmarked money, gave it to one another as bonuses and hid it in foreign banks.
If you are referring to the stimulus then you are wrong. The stimulus worked pretty much exactly like its proponents had predicted it would. The problem wasn't money being funneled off by evil bankers; the only problem was that politicians neutered and watered down the stimulus in an attempt to damage the economy for political gain.
If the original stimulus plan had passed or if even the first watered down version passed then the US economy would be in much better shape than it is in now. But even the highly watered down stimulus package worked. When it was put into effect the US economy was in free fall and was hemorrhaging jobs. The stimulus stopped the bleeding but it wasn't large enough to bring the economy back up to its previous levels.