I agree that it's overkill to do away with hosting the whole alt hierarchy, but there isn't much political speech going on in a newsgroup specifically dedicated to underage porn or warez binaries. In other words, they meant to drop alt.binaries.*, and ended up dropping alt.* instead? Typo?
If Verizon and the rest only allow access to a choice few sites, they will be giving millions of customers away to smaller ISPs who would be all too happy to grant unfettered access. And those smaller ISPs will be getting their pipe from whom? I'm on a very small, very cool ISP, but I definitely see things like Sprint on the traceroute between me and most places.
More importantly, are we expecting these customers to physically move? Because often, the big ISPs have a physical monopoly on an area.
I wouldn't be surprised if Google simply set up a public proxy for everyone to use Well, I think Google Groups already proxies to Usenet...
But it's naive at best to think licensed music services can prosper without action being taken against illegal downloading. It's even more naive to think that any amount of cracking down on piracy is going to solve this, at least without massive collateral damage.
Music companies are radically re-inventing their business models in response to changes in how music fans want to access music online. Amazingly, they haven't figured it out yet.
Independent research has shown time after time that people who download illegally generally spend less on music than people that don't, which undermines investment in new music. I'd like to see those studies. I've found that I actually spend more on music than I otherwise would.
As a self-confessed illegal downloader, Bill may not know there are already hundreds of licensed online and mobile services (carrying more than six million tracks) from which to choose where and how to access music legally. Ten that I know of, but let's find out which ones they mention...
iTunes (paid-for a la carte downloads), Napster and eMusic (monthly subscription), We7 (free to consumer, ad-supported), last.fm (interactive web radio), YouTube, Yahoo (streamed video on-demand) and Nokia's Comes With Music (music as part of a subscription) are just some of the many digital business models that record labels are supporting. Let's run through that, shall we? iTunes, while not always DRM'd, still requires the iTunes client. Napster relies on DRM, and you lose your music if they go out of business. We7 and last.fm actually have a shot at competing with piracy. YouTube doesn't provide any revenue to publishers, that I know of.
Oh, by the way, there's also Azureus Vuze, among others, who rely on filesharing to work, even as they allow for-pay downloads.
We believe that ISPs, far from being a simple pipe, can become significant distributors of digital media, and share in the tremendous value that would be unleashed if more music were accessed legally online. Ah, now their true colors come out. To everyone who pointed out that BPI is no longer the same company as the music label, it looks as though they still want a piece of the pie.
But despite the proliferation of licensed services, most music is still downloaded from unlicensed services - a problem that cannot be addressed through new models alone. Ok, one, how is that a problem? It's a problem if they aren't using your model -- not that they're getting music illegally. A download is not necessarily a lost sale.
And two, if it can't be addressed through new models alone, it can't be addressed -- again, without significant collateral damage.
Of course there is a small chance you do not believe in free will. I don't know enough about what goes on in the brain to form a proper belief, but it doesn't look like it.
In which case your logical conclusion should be that criminals may not be put into prisons are they clearly are not responsible for their actions. Actually, you're basing this on a faulty assumption -- that I believe in punishment as its own purpose, that we should hurt them because they deserve it.
No, I believe punishment serves a much simpler purpose -- it either corrects that behavior (which is why they are called "correctional facilities"), or at the very least, it removes them from society, making the world safer for the rest of us.
In fact, if a person is entirely deterministic, you could draw the conclusion that they'd be even less likely to change their ways, and more likely to do it again, in which case, many criminals should be shot. (You'd be wrong, of course -- that's an overly simplistic view of determinism.)
By the way: Try to properly define "free will" as something more than simple randomness. Because as far as what we can observe, we can pretty much simplify it to two things -- either the universe is entirely deterministic, or there is some element of randomness. We can see this by breaking it down to a decision -- either the decision will be the same exact thing (given the same exact inputs), or it is at least some amount of randomness (most likely within certain bounds).
Because if your definition of "free will" comes down to "You can do what you want to," you fail, because you now have to define what "you" are -- how do you know that your very consciousness isn't predetermined?
they're not going to encrypt the RAM. .... Trusted Computing devices may implement memory curtaining. Which is a software device, not actual encryption of the actual bits stored in actual RAM. Which means it's vulnerable to this attack.
Video starts slow, so I'll summarize for you here: RAM isn't erased automatically on poweroff, especially if you keep it cool. And remember, this was an attack which could hypothetically be used to attack a stolen laptop -- considering that this would be me attacking my own hardware, I think I'd have a better shot.
If Nokia builds interfaces and media applications in userspace using their own code the GPLv3 has nothing to do with it. I was making an assumption, but answer me this -- if they are playing by the rules, why did they say that they "aren't ready to"?
It sounded very much like they were wanting the community to work with them to develop DRM.
Simply having the largest handset manufacturer in the world using Linux gives the platform legitimacy it otherwise DOES NOT HAVE. Huh?
Linux has had a large chunk of the server market for a very long time. It's used in all kinds of embedded devices other than Nokia. And it makes a decent desktop OS.
Linux already has legitimacy. About all Nokia is at this point is another checkbox, so we can say "Oh yeah, IBM uses it, and so does Wall Street, and ILM, and Nokia, and..."
As far as i can tell Nokia IS playing by the rules, the problem is the rules keep fucking changing. The rules are, and have always been, roughly:
If you distribute this code, or any modified version, you must allow redistribution, and also provide the means to modify it, and run the redistributed or modified code in the same context.
GPLv2 encodes this legally as, roughly, that you must distribute sources, or if you statically link against LGPL, you must provide the LGPL source and your own binary object files, so they can be re-linked.
However, DRM changes the game such that you may well have the source and be able to do nothing with it -- not even because of a technical limitation, but because Tivo doesn't want you hacking on your own hardware.
All GPLv3 does is takes it back to the same meaning -- if you lock this software down with DRM, you must allow users to override that DRM, with no side effects.
I stand corrected on contribution, though: Nokia apparently pays for development, at least.
The problem is, I think that the
"i respect your beliefs, but i unfortunately believe you're most likely mistaken and here are some reasons why. of course, i could be wrong, but i think it unlikely." That person is very likely to lose patience and turn into this person:
"religious people are stupid cause if there was a god, there'd be no evil" I know I often have. When a Jehovah's Witness shows up on my door, I tend to stop them cold by describing the sadistic God depicted in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. I take the quickest path to both getting them off my doorstep, and shaking up their beliefs so that maybe next time, we can have an intelligent conversation.
In your opinion. Based on my experience -- that makes it my informed opinion.
Each of us has distinct experiences and in certain situations, each of us may disagree with what is more credible than not. And with most people, their experience actually gives them no more evidence of the supernatural than mine, but their confirmation bias is just a bit higher.
Certainly, if someone claims to have directly experienced something, I tend not to bother them about it -- either they're right, or they're on drugs, and either way, nothing I say will change their mind.
Maybe that could be used to argue against that person's definition of god, but there are plenty of people out there who assume that the god, gods, or higher entity have unknown attributes and therefore its unknown what they would do. In that case, that fits into the second part of my atheistic assertion. I assert that either no god exists, or if any kind of One God does, I want nothing to do with it.
Your belief in pink unicorns existed for a negligible amount of time compared to the rumored existence of a higher power. if the rumor of pink unicorns existed since almost the beginning of human existence, then it wouldn't be as silly. It's been said that the only difference between a cult and a religion is time and real estate. That seems to fit with your argument here.
A critical thinker can not dismiss the fact that religious beliefs have existed almost as long as humans themselves. Actually, I kind of can. The appendix has existed almost that long, right? Whatever purpose it may have once had, all it can do now is get infected and be surgically removed. We'd be better off without it.
Again, this comes down to an Occam's razor: Is it more credible that the sky-wizard exists, or that religion served some evolutionary purpose -- or that it's a complete aberration?
Some people (other than us) have even said they can't possibly fathom god's nonexistence whenever they look upon the world. Is it just them forcing what they see to fit their views? Maybe. Is it possible they are more open to 'seeing god in everything' than we are? Maybe. Which also fits into the "which is more credible" argument.
The people who look out into the world and can't possibly fathom god's nonexistence -- these are the Intelligent Design people, right? Two problems with this: First, it proves nothing about the nature of a "god" -- unless these people constantly "see" or "feel" his maleness, how do we even know god is male? How do we know it's benevolent?
The second problem is, of course, that it's too easy to find examples of the kind of beauty that people use to "prove" god's existence... in mathematics. Fractals, snowflakes... These are things which are the way they are because they couldn't be any other way, not because god declared that snowflakes be pretty and white.
I've just never been able to rule out the existence of a higher power I don't have to rule it out. I just have to show that it is absurd -- take that invisible pink unicorn. It's not a "higher power", or anything of the sort, just an example of something absurd that we can't rule out.
whats the harm with choosing a religion as a lifestyle just as long as you don't force it upon others. No harm at all.
Have you seen Zoolander? One simple example: Zoolander can't turn left. (He's "not an ambi-turner.") It's very silly, but completely harmless. Not even inconvenient for the rest of us -- he can always spin to his right 270 degrees, and he's good at that.
But I absolutely do dismiss the practice as silly, and if he ever tried to justify it to me as being at all logical, I would laugh in his face.
To religious people, I always say: I respect your right to have a religion. Believe whatever you want to believe! But I don't respect your religion -- it's archaic and stupid.
its really not different from Doom or Quake in that regard. It is, however, quite different from Quake 3/4 and Doom 3 in that regard. Although the Quake 3 source has since been released, it was a native port, done by id, and sold for profit.
If your library is LGPL and you link to it dynamically you don't have to release as GPL any app making use of that library. Actually, you can link it statically if you like, as long as you provide enough object files that your users can modify the LGPL library and relink it with your proprietary app.
No amount of "no DRM in GPL software" limitations is going to help if the people writing the DRM are able to sufficiently separate it such that the GPL license need not apply. If they are able to sufficiently separate it that the GPLv3 software isn't affected, then there's really no problem. GPLv3 isn't about preventing DRM, it's about preventing the use of DRM to close GPL software -- among other loopholes.
The classic example is Tivoisation. Tivo did release all the source for the GPL software they used. But they didn't provide any way of running a different version on your Tivo -- in fact, they went out of their way to prevent that, by signing the binaries.
A surprising example where the GPLv3 can happily coexist with DRM is the Playstation 3. You can install any Linux distro that will compile for it, and you can custom-compile everything. The catch is that it all runs inside a hypervisor (virtual machine), which prevents access to certain hardware. But since you are free to hack up the GPLv3 stuff, recompile it, and run it in exactly the same context as the original, it is GPLv3-compatible.
The misguidedness of DRM in the huge majority of situations is another matter, though. Yes, it is. And it's important that we keep it a separate issue than GPLv3.
as long as they comply with the license terms of the software they use I don't see a problem. The GPLv3 forbids a lot of things Nokia wants to do.
it would be bad for the platform if companies stop using it. It wouldn't matter much for the platform at all if companies continue to use it, but contribute nothing at all. In that case, they may as well not be using it.
Basically, Nokia has three simple options: Either play by the rules, pay me for my efforts, or don't use my code. That's one more option than you get with proprietary software, by the way.
The main issues have been addressed already, so I'll take the joke:
When you spend $2M for software licensing fees, $500k for IT staff doesn't look bad. When you spend $0 for software, $500k for staff starts to look like a good cost-cutting target for that asshole PHB exec! And when you used to spend $2,500,000 on IT (including licensing fees), and you now spend $1M (not including licensing fees), it looks to management like you more than halved your budget (while still delivering the same or better service), when, in fact, you doubled your budget.
Not if the non-altruistic one destroyed the altruistic group. Circular argument. And my point was internal altruism. That is, assume they're at war with each other -- but one group is just purely selfish, and the other is actually altruistic, takes care of its wounded, protects its children, etc.
You just provided the same kind of argument the other guy did. "Hey, maybe it was -insert cause-. I'm not going to provide any evidence other than that just stating its a possibility." Except mine is a possibility, and I think a good deal more credible than a mythical sky-wizard.
Or, seeing as how I'm pretty sure we can all agree that humans make mistakes, maybe manson just misunderstood what he was supposed to do. And, seeing as how I'm pretty sure we all agree that God, by definition, is not supposed to make mistakes, why would he choose Manson?
You haven't had a supernatural experience, therefore its more likely the one's who have had the experience are being deceived. Why is it that they're the one's being deceived. Maybe you're the one deceived. The exact same argument can be applied against you. Fair enough -- we can't truly know anything.
But have you actually had a supernatural experience of your own? If not, your argument is hypothetical and devil's advocate, and mine is based on experience.
I find it hard discount its existence just because you have found no natural evidence of the supernatural. I don't discount it, but I don't often waste time speculating on it, either. There may well be an invisible pink unicorn in my garage, but which should be the default position regarding that? Should I spend my life searching everyone's garage for fine pink unicorn hairs that she's shed, or an occasional hoofprint? Or should I just assume that there's no unicorn until someone proves otherwise?
By the way, a primary argument of GP was that the supernatural cannot, by definition, have natural evidence. So whenever we find natural evidence to explain a very weird phenomenon, it ceases to be supernatural, and becomes natural.
We have thinking machines that we're using to communicate over vast distances, using the same energy that powers lightning. It sounds very supernatural, but it's actually very natural.
Hume's argument is that for any given supernatural event, it either is not real, or it can be explained naturally -- even if we ultimately have to discover new natural laws to apply to it.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Absence of belief is not denial of possibility.
to try and prove those who disagree with you as being wrong is somewhat silly. Well, it's incredibly, insanely silly to believe in an invisible pink unicorn. Yet it's socially accepted to believe in a sky-wizard.
Your entire argument seems to be a wishy-washy Agnostic "Well, maybe it could be true!" That applies to anything. If belief in God is critical thinking, I don't know what isn't.
Which is not to say that people aren't capable of both. As has been pointed out elsewhere, many great scientists were religious.
I do know that trying to claim one as 100% certain... You see, I never did that. To quote myself:
I have no reason to assume that the supernatural exists -- and, in fact, it seems much more likely that any record I have of the supernatural (including, nay, especially the Bible) is faulty than to assume that there is something so beyond the physical laws that we could never hope to explain it. That's not an expression of certainty. That's pure Occam's razor. Given two possibilities -- that a man has risen from the dead, or that someone made up a story -- which one is more credible, given your experience?
Of course your answer may be different than mine -- maybe you've seen angels, and maybe you have considerable reason to believe that you were sane and conscious at the time.
But the vast majority of us have not seen angels, or anything else truly supernatural. The vast majority of us should, therefore, be atheist by default, if we wish to believe what is actually true.
Teach them about religion when they are able to understand and grasp it fully intellectually, 16+ or even better let them get it on their own when they are considered adult. I don't think so.
At 16, are they going to listen to anything you say? You're the parent; you're uncool by default.
As an adult, they might be more open, but they'll also be very much independent -- you won't have much more luck with them than you would with any other adult.
As a young child, I think the age is about five or six, but really, it's not a difficult concept -- "How do you know this?" And simple logic games.
Remember, young kids love to question everything. They love to ask "why" about everthing -- literally everything, pretty much driving you to a "because I said so" eventually.
Realizing how stupid your lies are will make every other stupid lie (ghosts, ufos, jesus) more obvious. Actually, that's not always true. Much more likely, they'd assume you're a liar -- and you might even strengthen their religion. ("Look! Here's an atheist, and he's such an asshole! He lies about everything! Us righteous godlike people never lie...")
If you hear the sound, feel the heat and see some light...don't jump to the conclusion of "dragon". Investigate. No, when I find shed scales, giant bird-like footprints, and charred husks of armor, I'll pretty much assume there's either a dragon in there, or someone very much wants me to believe that there's a dragon in there.
I claim horseshit. Those mantras are only repeated by people who have managed to succeed after relatively small failures. In other words, those people who have learned to fail quickly, and learn from those failures.
To be fair, that is a circular argument, but so is yours.
It's a mantra in the electronics industry... Has it occurred to you why?
The best of us build systems from failure. We write code, and try to compile it -- how many of us can write a hundred lines of code which even compiles cleanly, let alone runs bug-free?
No, the best of us will compile early and often, and try again. And we'll write unit tests systems, and we'll do test-driven development -- write the failing test first, then hack on the code until it passes the test.
It's not just a "mantra", or a belief, or a platitude. It's a reality that I deal with every few minutes, all day, every day.
Among other things, I observe some people dying for others when they don't have to (altruism).... I observe some real sacrificial love. Altruism may not be good for survival of the individual, but it is good for survival of the species. And Darwinism works at pretty much all levels -- if there were two groups of humanoids early on, and one was altruistic, while another wasn't, the altruistic group would've had a better chance of survival.
I observe some amazing changes of heart in people I interact with that would not be expected or predicted. I observe some insanity, also. For all we know, that's what it was -- a random fluke of insanity that took them in a good direction.
Or maybe it was building for some time now, and they only just now admitted to it.
I observe people like Martin Luther King, who believed in God and also achieved some real greatness by following where he thought God was leading. And I observe people like Charles Manson, who thought he was following where God was leading, too. Delusions don't necessarily have to have bad results -- and, conversely, just because something has a good result does not make it real.
This in fact is a fallacy; here's why. By its very nature the supernatural is "super" natural. If it were measurable, repeatable, therified and falsifiable, it would cease to be *super*natural and merely be a part of nature. I highly recommend reading David Hume -- even just his Wikipedia page. A favorite quote of mine: "When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened."
It's part of a larger argument that the world is, essentially, natural, and not supernatural. Having never directly experienced anything supernatural myself, I have no reason to assume that the supernatural exists -- and, in fact, it seems much more likely that any record I have of the supernatural (including, nay, especially the Bible) is faulty than to assume that there is something so beyond the physical laws that we could never hope to explain it.
Open-source developers targeting the mobile space need to learn business rules including digital rights management, Nokia's software chief has claimed. Very first paragraph, in case you had any doubts. (By the way, to anyone who's agreeing with it -- I have to eat too, and I work for a company in the music industry who does not use DRM.)
Dr Ari Jaaksi told delegates that the open-source community needed to be 'educated' in the way the mobile industry currently works, because the industry has not yet moved beyond old business models. It's not our problem that your business models haven't caught up. In fact, I present the music industry as Exhibit A of what happens when you try to cling to a failing business model.
"There are certain business rules [developers] need to obey, such as DRM, IPR [intellectual property rights], SIM locks and subsidised business models." Mmmkay. I guess I'll just stop watching DVDs (which I've legally purchased/rented) on my custom-built Linux PC. Oh, and playing/encoding MP3s...
You respect our rights first, then we'll respect yours.
Jaaksi admitted that concepts like these "go against the open-source philosophy", but said they were necessary components of the current mobile industry. Which tells me that something is very wrong with the current mobile industry.
"Why do we need closed vehicles? We do," he said. Now, maybe he means cars need to be closed in design, in which case, I call BS.
If he means we need cars which can lock, or cars which are not convertibles, then it is, indeed, the worst car analogy ever.
This seems to be worded as an analogy which is meant to be self-evident. It isn't, though. I can interpret it in one way where it's a bad analogy (doesn't fit what he's describing), and another way where it actually supports my position.
"Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]." So wait -- do I have to say anything here? He's making my point for me -- some of these things harm the industry, so why don't you fucking change them?
"As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too." If you're not ready to play by the rules, don't play. Pick up your toys and go home.
And what is the second part supposed to mean? That we should plan to use closed-source technologies, but not play by the rules? That might be fair.
primarily the need to avoid 'forking' code. He said: "Don't make your own version. The original mistake we made was to take the code to our labs, change it and then release it at the last minute. The community had already gone in a different direction than [us], and no-one was pushing it other than [us]. Everybody wants to make their own version and keep it too close to their chest but that leads to fragmentation." So that part has been misconstrued, or at least, he seems to be confusing a need to not fork with a need to release early and often.
By all means, fork. That's the beauty of open source -- fork if you need to. But if you want to have a chance of ever merging again, or of working with the same codebase as everyone else, make sure everyone else knows what you're doing.
In other words, he's right about that one.
This smells very strongly of mistranslation, but that last part was the only bit taken out of context. The rest is pretty much exactly as bad as you think it is.
They want DRM, which needs the software to be closed source. So I guess that's already what they are asking for. More likely, they know of some specific piece of software that they'd rather just pick up an open source version of, and then wrap it in proprietary DRM. It wouldn't be GPLv3 compatible, and it'd be against what most of us see as the philosophy of open source, but you could get the source code to whatever GPLv2 stuff they used.
And the "we need closed vehicles" bit? Worst car analogy ever.... What nokia wants are cars that locks from the outside when you get in, so you can't escape from them. Ok, you know what? Let's just stop using car analogies for encryption. Yours is as bad as theirs.
Virtual machines are generally not configured to emulate this chip, and even if they did, the signature would not check out because the DRM vendor declines to sign VMware's public key. Who says we'd be using VMware, or their public key? Just pull the key out of the original chip.
That assumes that the chip is being asked to do enough crypto for this to matter. Another alternative is to simply find the section of the code where they've embedded the DRM vendor's certificate, and replace it with our own. Or find the "if(TPM == true){" block (in ASM, but still not hard) and change it to "if(true){".
I can imagine a few ways this could work, but it would require much more than we currently have -- and even then, you only need one person to crack it, and they're not going to encrypt the RAM.
2) Tarpitting solves nothing really. Spammers work with large botnets, some as large as a million zombies. I still think it can work, given progressive tarpitting of IPs, IP ranges, and domains (via reverse lookup) across all traffic -- not just SMTP, but anything I can put a rate-limiter in front of. In theory, this would put pressure on users directly, or on ISPs to pressure their users, or users to pressure their ISPs to and stop harboring spammers -- imagine if everyone who spams Gmail were blocked (or considerably slowed) from google.com.
Seems to me a lot more fair and reliable than, say, what AOL does, with blocking all IP ranges known to be dynamic.
That said, I haven't tried it.
You seem to be in the comfortable position that you only have to check your mail once per day At least once per day, sometimes many times -- but I only check my spam once per day.
Ofcourse that's still no big deal in the big picture but it's measurable overhead that we all pay every day, for no particular reason. Well, either 30 seconds or 4-5 minutes, any solution has to be less painful than that.
Apple are also not directly competing with microsoft, they sell a bundle of hardware and software together. Microsoft does the same thing. Sure, they contract with third-parties to sell the hardware (Dell, HP, etc), but really, it's the same thing.
Sure, you can buy Windows separately, for about four or five times the price. And you can buy OS X separately also, it just requires the proper hardware.
The only difference is that you can buy a Dell without Windows on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thankfully, this seemed to be more Hillary's thing than Obama, who has actually come out in favor of net neutrality.
So if it had been Hillary vs McCain, I'd write someone in, or not go at all. Since it's Obama vs McCain, I feel pretty safe voting for Obama.
More importantly, are we expecting these customers to physically move? Because often, the big ISPs have a physical monopoly on an area. I wouldn't be surprised if Google simply set up a public proxy for everyone to use Well, I think Google Groups already proxies to Usenet...
Oh, by the way, there's also Azureus Vuze, among others, who rely on filesharing to work, even as they allow for-pay downloads. We believe that ISPs, far from being a simple pipe, can become significant distributors of digital media, and share in the tremendous value that would be unleashed if more music were accessed legally online. Ah, now their true colors come out. To everyone who pointed out that BPI is no longer the same company as the music label, it looks as though they still want a piece of the pie. But despite the proliferation of licensed services, most music is still downloaded from unlicensed services - a problem that cannot be addressed through new models alone. Ok, one, how is that a problem? It's a problem if they aren't using your model -- not that they're getting music illegally. A download is not necessarily a lost sale.
And two, if it can't be addressed through new models alone, it can't be addressed -- again, without significant collateral damage.
No, I believe punishment serves a much simpler purpose -- it either corrects that behavior (which is why they are called "correctional facilities"), or at the very least, it removes them from society, making the world safer for the rest of us.
In fact, if a person is entirely deterministic, you could draw the conclusion that they'd be even less likely to change their ways, and more likely to do it again, in which case, many criminals should be shot. (You'd be wrong, of course -- that's an overly simplistic view of determinism.)
By the way: Try to properly define "free will" as something more than simple randomness. Because as far as what we can observe, we can pretty much simplify it to two things -- either the universe is entirely deterministic, or there is some element of randomness. We can see this by breaking it down to a decision -- either the decision will be the same exact thing (given the same exact inputs), or it is at least some amount of randomness (most likely within certain bounds).
Because if your definition of "free will" comes down to "You can do what you want to," you fail, because you now have to define what "you" are -- how do you know that your very consciousness isn't predetermined?
Video starts slow, so I'll summarize for you here: RAM isn't erased automatically on poweroff, especially if you keep it cool. And remember, this was an attack which could hypothetically be used to attack a stolen laptop -- considering that this would be me attacking my own hardware, I think I'd have a better shot.
It sounded very much like they were wanting the community to work with them to develop DRM. Simply having the largest handset manufacturer in the world using Linux gives the platform legitimacy it otherwise DOES NOT HAVE. Huh?
Linux has had a large chunk of the server market for a very long time. It's used in all kinds of embedded devices other than Nokia. And it makes a decent desktop OS.
Linux already has legitimacy. About all Nokia is at this point is another checkbox, so we can say "Oh yeah, IBM uses it, and so does Wall Street, and ILM, and Nokia, and..." As far as i can tell Nokia IS playing by the rules, the problem is the rules keep fucking changing. The rules are, and have always been, roughly:
If you distribute this code, or any modified version, you must allow redistribution, and also provide the means to modify it, and run the redistributed or modified code in the same context.
GPLv2 encodes this legally as, roughly, that you must distribute sources, or if you statically link against LGPL, you must provide the LGPL source and your own binary object files, so they can be re-linked.
However, DRM changes the game such that you may well have the source and be able to do nothing with it -- not even because of a technical limitation, but because Tivo doesn't want you hacking on your own hardware.
All GPLv3 does is takes it back to the same meaning -- if you lock this software down with DRM, you must allow users to override that DRM, with no side effects.
I stand corrected on contribution, though: Nokia apparently pays for development, at least.
Certainly, if someone claims to have directly experienced something, I tend not to bother them about it -- either they're right, or they're on drugs, and either way, nothing I say will change their mind. Maybe that could be used to argue against that person's definition of god, but there are plenty of people out there who assume that the god, gods, or higher entity have unknown attributes and therefore its unknown what they would do. In that case, that fits into the second part of my atheistic assertion. I assert that either no god exists, or if any kind of One God does, I want nothing to do with it. Your belief in pink unicorns existed for a negligible amount of time compared to the rumored existence of a higher power. if the rumor of pink unicorns existed since almost the beginning of human existence, then it wouldn't be as silly. It's been said that the only difference between a cult and a religion is time and real estate. That seems to fit with your argument here. A critical thinker can not dismiss the fact that religious beliefs have existed almost as long as humans themselves. Actually, I kind of can. The appendix has existed almost that long, right? Whatever purpose it may have once had, all it can do now is get infected and be surgically removed. We'd be better off without it.
Again, this comes down to an Occam's razor: Is it more credible that the sky-wizard exists, or that religion served some evolutionary purpose -- or that it's a complete aberration? Some people (other than us) have even said they can't possibly fathom god's nonexistence whenever they look upon the world. Is it just them forcing what they see to fit their views? Maybe. Is it possible they are more open to 'seeing god in everything' than we are? Maybe. Which also fits into the "which is more credible" argument.
The people who look out into the world and can't possibly fathom god's nonexistence -- these are the Intelligent Design people, right? Two problems with this: First, it proves nothing about the nature of a "god" -- unless these people constantly "see" or "feel" his maleness, how do we even know god is male? How do we know it's benevolent?
The second problem is, of course, that it's too easy to find examples of the kind of beauty that people use to "prove" god's existence... in mathematics. Fractals, snowflakes... These are things which are the way they are because they couldn't be any other way, not because god declared that snowflakes be pretty and white. I've just never been able to rule out the existence of a higher power I don't have to rule it out. I just have to show that it is absurd -- take that invisible pink unicorn. It's not a "higher power", or anything of the sort, just an example of something absurd that we can't rule out. whats the harm with choosing a religion as a lifestyle just as long as you don't force it upon others. No harm at all.
Have you seen Zoolander? One simple example: Zoolander can't turn left. (He's "not an ambi-turner.") It's very silly, but completely harmless. Not even inconvenient for the rest of us -- he can always spin to his right 270 degrees, and he's good at that.
But I absolutely do dismiss the practice as silly, and if he ever tried to justify it to me as being at all logical, I would laugh in his face.
To religious people, I always say: I respect your right to have a religion. Believe whatever you want to believe! But I don't respect your religion -- it's archaic and stupid.
The classic example is Tivoisation. Tivo did release all the source for the GPL software they used. But they didn't provide any way of running a different version on your Tivo -- in fact, they went out of their way to prevent that, by signing the binaries.
A surprising example where the GPLv3 can happily coexist with DRM is the Playstation 3. You can install any Linux distro that will compile for it, and you can custom-compile everything. The catch is that it all runs inside a hypervisor (virtual machine), which prevents access to certain hardware. But since you are free to hack up the GPLv3 stuff, recompile it, and run it in exactly the same context as the original, it is GPLv3-compatible. The misguidedness of DRM in the huge majority of situations is another matter, though. Yes, it is. And it's important that we keep it a separate issue than GPLv3.
Basically, Nokia has three simple options: Either play by the rules, pay me for my efforts, or don't use my code. That's one more option than you get with proprietary software, by the way.
When you spend $0 for software, $500k for staff starts to look like a good cost-cutting target for that asshole PHB exec! And when you used to spend $2,500,000 on IT (including licensing fees), and you now spend $1M (not including licensing fees), it looks to management like you more than halved your budget (while still delivering the same or better service), when, in fact, you doubled your budget.
But have you actually had a supernatural experience of your own? If not, your argument is hypothetical and devil's advocate, and mine is based on experience. I find it hard discount its existence just because you have found no natural evidence of the supernatural. I don't discount it, but I don't often waste time speculating on it, either. There may well be an invisible pink unicorn in my garage, but which should be the default position regarding that? Should I spend my life searching everyone's garage for fine pink unicorn hairs that she's shed, or an occasional hoofprint? Or should I just assume that there's no unicorn until someone proves otherwise?
By the way, a primary argument of GP was that the supernatural cannot, by definition, have natural evidence. So whenever we find natural evidence to explain a very weird phenomenon, it ceases to be supernatural, and becomes natural.
We have thinking machines that we're using to communicate over vast distances, using the same energy that powers lightning. It sounds very supernatural, but it's actually very natural.
Hume's argument is that for any given supernatural event, it either is not real, or it can be explained naturally -- even if we ultimately have to discover new natural laws to apply to it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Absence of belief is not denial of possibility. to try and prove those who disagree with you as being wrong is somewhat silly. Well, it's incredibly, insanely silly to believe in an invisible pink unicorn. Yet it's socially accepted to believe in a sky-wizard.
Your entire argument seems to be a wishy-washy Agnostic "Well, maybe it could be true!" That applies to anything. If belief in God is critical thinking, I don't know what isn't.
Which is not to say that people aren't capable of both. As has been pointed out elsewhere, many great scientists were religious. I do know that trying to claim one as 100% certain... You see, I never did that. To quote myself: I have no reason to assume that the supernatural exists -- and, in fact, it seems much more likely that any record I have of the supernatural (including, nay, especially the Bible) is faulty than to assume that there is something so beyond the physical laws that we could never hope to explain it. That's not an expression of certainty. That's pure Occam's razor. Given two possibilities -- that a man has risen from the dead, or that someone made up a story -- which one is more credible, given your experience?
Of course your answer may be different than mine -- maybe you've seen angels, and maybe you have considerable reason to believe that you were sane and conscious at the time.
But the vast majority of us have not seen angels, or anything else truly supernatural. The vast majority of us should, therefore, be atheist by default, if we wish to believe what is actually true.
At 16, are they going to listen to anything you say? You're the parent; you're uncool by default.
As an adult, they might be more open, but they'll also be very much independent -- you won't have much more luck with them than you would with any other adult.
As a young child, I think the age is about five or six, but really, it's not a difficult concept -- "How do you know this?" And simple logic games.
Remember, young kids love to question everything. They love to ask "why" about everthing -- literally everything, pretty much driving you to a "because I said so" eventually.
To be fair, that is a circular argument, but so is yours. It's a mantra in the electronics industry... Has it occurred to you why?
The best of us build systems from failure. We write code, and try to compile it -- how many of us can write a hundred lines of code which even compiles cleanly, let alone runs bug-free?
No, the best of us will compile early and often, and try again. And we'll write unit tests systems, and we'll do test-driven development -- write the failing test first, then hack on the code until it passes the test.
It's not just a "mantra", or a belief, or a platitude. It's a reality that I deal with every few minutes, all day, every day.
Or maybe it was building for some time now, and they only just now admitted to it. I observe people like Martin Luther King, who believed in God and also achieved some real greatness by following where he thought God was leading. And I observe people like Charles Manson, who thought he was following where God was leading, too. Delusions don't necessarily have to have bad results -- and, conversely, just because something has a good result does not make it real. This in fact is a fallacy; here's why. By its very nature the supernatural is "super" natural. If it were measurable, repeatable, therified and falsifiable, it would cease to be *super*natural and merely be a part of nature. I highly recommend reading David Hume -- even just his Wikipedia page. A favorite quote of mine: "When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened."
It's part of a larger argument that the world is, essentially, natural, and not supernatural. Having never directly experienced anything supernatural myself, I have no reason to assume that the supernatural exists -- and, in fact, it seems much more likely that any record I have of the supernatural (including, nay, especially the Bible) is faulty than to assume that there is something so beyond the physical laws that we could never hope to explain it.
You respect our rights first, then we'll respect yours. Jaaksi admitted that concepts like these "go against the open-source philosophy", but said they were necessary components of the current mobile industry. Which tells me that something is very wrong with the current mobile industry. "Why do we need closed vehicles? We do," he said. Now, maybe he means cars need to be closed in design, in which case, I call BS.
If he means we need cars which can lock, or cars which are not convertibles, then it is, indeed, the worst car analogy ever.
This seems to be worded as an analogy which is meant to be self-evident. It isn't, though. I can interpret it in one way where it's a bad analogy (doesn't fit what he's describing), and another way where it actually supports my position. "Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]." So wait -- do I have to say anything here? He's making my point for me -- some of these things harm the industry, so why don't you fucking change them? "As an industry, we plan to use open-source technologies but we are not yet ready to play by the rules; but this needs to work the other way round too." If you're not ready to play by the rules, don't play. Pick up your toys and go home.
And what is the second part supposed to mean? That we should plan to use closed-source technologies, but not play by the rules? That might be fair. primarily the need to avoid 'forking' code. He said: "Don't make your own version. The original mistake we made was to take the code to our labs, change it and then release it at the last minute. The community had already gone in a different direction than [us], and no-one was pushing it other than [us]. Everybody wants to make their own version and keep it too close to their chest but that leads to fragmentation." So that part has been misconstrued, or at least, he seems to be confusing a need to not fork with a need to release early and often.
By all means, fork. That's the beauty of open source -- fork if you need to. But if you want to have a chance of ever merging again, or of working with the same codebase as everyone else, make sure everyone else knows what you're doing.
In other words, he's right about that one.
This smells very strongly of mistranslation, but that last part was the only bit taken out of context. The rest is pretty much exactly as bad as you think it is.
That assumes that the chip is being asked to do enough crypto for this to matter. Another alternative is to simply find the section of the code where they've embedded the DRM vendor's certificate, and replace it with our own. Or find the "if(TPM == true){" block (in ASM, but still not hard) and change it to "if(true){".
I can imagine a few ways this could work, but it would require much more than we currently have -- and even then, you only need one person to crack it, and they're not going to encrypt the RAM.
Seems to me a lot more fair and reliable than, say, what AOL does, with blocking all IP ranges known to be dynamic.
That said, I haven't tried it. You seem to be in the comfortable position that you only have to check your mail once per day At least once per day, sometimes many times -- but I only check my spam once per day. Ofcourse that's still no big deal in the big picture but it's measurable overhead that we all pay every day, for no particular reason. Well, either 30 seconds or 4-5 minutes, any solution has to be less painful than that.
Sure, you can buy Windows separately, for about four or five times the price. And you can buy OS X separately also, it just requires the proper hardware.
The only difference is that you can buy a Dell without Windows on it.