By making the solution Windows only, the BBC are forcing you to buy commercial software from Microsoft in order to view their programmes. This is just like saying "You must have a Sky subscription to view BBC programmes".
Because we all pay for those BBC programmes with the special TV tax, this is unacceptable. We should be able to view the programmes without having to pay for an OS. Making a version for Mac doesn't change that, as it's still not free. Where's the equivalent of "Freeview" - "no subscription required"?
I don't care about 4od or Sky because my TV licence money has not paid for them. They're Windows only? Fine, whatever, I won't watch them. But the BBC's iPlayer is different, because my TV licence money has paid for it. Even though I have the required hardware and a decent net connection, I can't use it, because I don't have Windows XP. Apparently, I need to buy more software for my "television".
(Refer to the previous version of this topic for various reasons why it's a bad thing - there isn't enough news, so there have to be repeats...)
Seems awfully vague and encompassing. If this is standard to all patents (or of a certain type) then is it necessary for inclusion?
When the word patent is used as an adjective, one meaning is:
clear or obvious: very obvious and not open to doubt
How did we get from that meaning to
unclear and obfuscated: impossible to understand, open to interpretation
And all patents seem to be obfuscated in this way. Perl scripts are more readable - at least those can be interpreted by a machine! Why isn't it a requirement that the information be presented so that (a) it is clear what is patented, and (b) once the patent expires, the information can be used by others?
Just another way in which the patent system needs reform, IMO.
Right now, in this topic, I can see three possible links to Java flaws that "could be it". It's great that contributors to this topic have been able to dig up these links, but really, the original article should have included some details about the exploit so that we would all be in no doubt about what it actually involves. As it is, both the submission and the ZDnet article include no details at all. Nothing. What's the point of that? It's about as effective as raising the "terror alert" to "critical".
That 26% would support the devil himself if he was (or pretended to be):
1. Christian (ironic isn't it?) 2. Republican
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis, 1935
I must admit I was initially unsure about voting for Adolf Hitler, but when I heard about his sensible pro-life stance and opposition to non-Christians, I was all for him. I mean, those are the issues that really matter, right? His foreign policy decisions have also been first rate. I think the invasion of France has been a damn good idea, and we'll definitely defeat the insurgents in the next few months. And with their new powers, the Gestapo have been doing a fine job of eradicating the terrorist threat in the Fatherland. I often see them making arrests, which just goes to show how lucky we are to have them - our enemies are everywhere. I'm sure that the stories of human rights abuses in internment camps like Auschwitz are just liberal lies. So that's why I support our President. He's a fine Christian man, and I will not even listen to anyone who doesn't think so.
The only way to be sure of these points, is to use DRM. How else do you do it, ask the user before the video plays?
My post must have been unclear, please allow me to clarify.
(1) The BBC is already using a system that detects your country of origin based on your IP address. If you're not connecting from the UK, you can't get certain content from their website. This is implemented by a simple security check.
(2) The "licence-fee payer" login would be checked by a BBC server before files were served. Login schemes are already used by many websites, including this one. The technology is mature and very secure when properly implemented.
(3) Limiting the range of programmes available online is a job for the BBC webmasters, who have full control of the files available through their own servers. They can simply avoid uploading certain programmes. The BBC already uses this technique to limit on-demand access to certain radio programmes in order to comply with music licencing requirements.
None of these involve DRM. The security is all on the server side.
The point I am making is these achieve the same result as using Microsoft DRM (which can be bypassed in any case by off-air recording) with the result that access to BBC programmes can be platform-independent for all licence fee payers. Sorry if this is unclear, I am tired.
A cross-platform solution is what we need: DRM and OS lock-in are two different issues and the real issue here is OS lock-in.
I see what you're saying. And I agree that if the player software could run on a free OS, then that would be the Internet equivalent of "Freeview" that I mentioned at the end of my post. Licence fee payers would have access to the programmes without a requirement to pay the Microsoft tax. That solution would seem satisfactory, if not ideal.
However, the use of DRM does limit viewers to the platforms that the BBC supports, and I do not think this is desirable.
Fine, but they could achieve the same results by (1) refusing to serve the content to people outside the UK, (2) requiring a "licence-fee payer" login to download anything, and (3) limiting the range of programmes available online in order to satisfy the requirements of commercial co-producers. There's no need for DRM, especially as the BBC is already using a system to restrict some content to UK users only.
Now, there is an obvious objection to (1) and (2). Someone could download a programme in the UK, then put it on Bittorrent. But that's a silly objection, firstly because that same person could capture the programme from a TV broadcast, and secondly because that person could crack the DRM. Microsoft DRM is as vulnerable to attack as any other sort of DRM.
The use of DRM in this case is basically equivalent to saying "You can't watch BBC programmes without a Sky subscription". Sure, the delivery medium is the Internet not digital satellite, and the "Sky subscription" is a "Windows XP licence", but the effect is the same - you have to pay a third party in order to watch licence-fee funded programmes. We need an equivalent of "Freeview" that will work for anyone at no cost, but because Microsoft DRM is being used, the BBC has excluded that possibility.
Re:IE problem, but also Firefox problem.
on
Firefox Quickies
·
· Score: 1
his webpage redirects the browser to steam://open/main, which will open the main Steam window. The user never sees the actual url... some of the uglier ones have confirmation screens I believe, but launching a game or connecting to a server does not.
It really bothers me that a Steam game server (e.g. for CS:S) can force your computer to open any webpage as soon as it connects. This is used by some CS:S admins to make welcome screens with persistent scoreboards. But an Internet Explorer widget is used, and this seems a very obvious vector for exploits - it is also annoying. Do you know of any way of turning it off?
Yeah, good going. Stolen plate reported, different make/model - instant red flag. Perhaps the terrorists in your world play make-believe like you do!
No, this is crap. Over here in England, there have been cases where people have copied licence plates, often in order to dodge the Congestion Charge: the special city road tax that is implemented using automatic number plate recognition (ANPR). They look out for a car of the same make and model as they drive around, note down the number, and then get a copy of the licence plate made.
In order to stop this, the Government added new laws to make it more difficult to get licence plates made. If you want to get a new licence plate from a reputable dealership or mechanic, you have to prove you own the car by producing all the documentation for it. And two forms of ID. Unfortunately this didn't help at all, because licence plates can be bought on the black market.
So the new solution is to RFID chip every car. Luckily, there could never be any way of cloning an RFID chip... The new solution does have the added benefit of making the sensor equipment very cheap - no image recognition required - so it can be more widely deployed. Just one more step towards a log of every action you ever take... only then will we be safe from the terrorists, right?
If regular criminals can clone cars, resourceful terrorists won't have much difficulty. Or they won't use cars at all. It's security theatre again, an excuse for a new tax. It's bullshit, and there's evidence from the UK that shows it's good for nothing but milking more money out of you.
1) Require a national ID number to download any Linux distro, and validation of ownership of this number through an in-person meeting with the local authorities.
2) Have the software "phone home" that it's actually being used, when it's used.
Yes! Every day Linux Genuine Advantage helps customers all over the world who are victims of software piracy get genuine. If you got your Linux for free, you should upgrade today to get the following exciting new features:
Closed source, for extra Security Through Obscurity(tm),
Compatibility with the latest viruses and malware,
Innovative new Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) to help you manage your digital rights,
DirectX 10.
Anyway, you don't want an OS that was written by hackers, do you?
These laws seem to presuppose that the robot will have a human-like mind that is capable of understanding concepts like "injure", "inaction", "human being" and "harm". Asimov was being optimistic about the ease of making an AI that was even capable of understanding these ideas, let alone applying them to the real world. Still, sci-fi would be very dull if it wasn't full of wild ideas and crazy predictions.
At this stage of development of an AI I can trust the computer only to show a letter 'a' on the screen when I press the 'a' key.
I think it can be summarised like this: - Current AIs are not clever enough to be in charge of weapons, because they aren't capable of understanding when they should be used. - Science fiction AIs are too clever to be in charge of weapons, because they always use them to take over the world. On the whole, it sounds like a really really bad idea to give an AI a gun, no matter how smart the AI might be.
Why should I pay $540 for the course when I can learn the same skills from certain not-so-friendly groups and actually also get paid for it! Saudi Ozzie, here I come.
Also I heard that terrorist summer camps are actually a front for some sort of fundamentalist church. So not only do you not learn how to be an effective bomber, you also get brainwashed with a load of crazy nonsense about Jeebus and vegetarian T-Rexes. All considered, I'd rather pay up and learn about explosives from some proper experts.
Ah, a minor improvement. It did strike me as particularly incompetent that Adobe's DRM scheme did not even work with the latest version of their own product, but then DRM is all about incompatibility and frustration for legitimate users.
Yes, it's true. Sadly, early transcribers of the book left out the stuff they didn't understand. In addition to a number of now-forgotten sections describing the role of evolution in the creation of life, this included the following cryptic verses:
2:2 And on the seventh day God said:wq and then make.
2:3 And God watched gcc running and sanctified it, because it would have taken Him at least two weeks to write the whole thing in machine code.
The idea that an institution like the British Library, which is run by people bright enough to make you look like a dead match, would accept such a preposterous idea is insulting.
Unfortunately, those bright people don't get to make technical decisions.
The British Library recently introduced SED, an electronic document delivery system. With SED, you can order electronic copies of journal papers and articles from their archives. Great idea! Previously, you had to wait for the documents to come through the post, and that would take a week or so. Now you get them by email in a couple of working days.
Except that the documents are crippled by Adobe DRM, which imposes the following restrictions:
You can only view them using certain specific versions of Acrobat Reader (6 or 7) - the latest version is not recommended.
The software only works on Windows 2000 or XP. No Linux support, no Mac support. Vista might work, but again, it's not recommended.
You can only look at each document for a limited time, and you can only print it once.
So, if you want to use the service, you'd better hope that you have (a) the right version of Windows, (b) the right version of Acrobat Reader, (c) a reliable net connection, and, most importantly, (d) a very reliable printer that won't chew up the document. Unless you're a filthy dirty pirate, of course.
If Adobe managed to convince the British Library to put up with this ridiculous system, I am sure that Microsoft will have no difficulty convincing them about their archive "solution". If SED is anything to go by, it'll be another awful implementation of a great idea.
You're right that you can expend a probably awesome effort to synchronize a cheat program with the RNG(your game is being played on a remote server, so you can't just search through memory--the client is completely untrusted), but only if the server is using a PRNG and not a "true" (physical-source) RNG(or, in practice, a high-quality PRNG).
Now that is an interesting hack. Nethack appears to just use the libc random functions which are most definitely pseudo-random and seeded from time(), so it should be possible to predict what will happen in the game given certain movements, allowing a cheater to effectively "play ahead" on his own machine, taking snapshots which allow bad moves to be undone. The best move sequence can be sent to the server.
Depending on your viewpoint, this might not even be cheating, because you are simply using your knowledge of the game's internals in order to play better. You are not using dynamic information about the current game, but rather using static information about the game software. Some Nethack players take notes about items they find in order to help identify them - you can identify many items if you know how much a shopkeeper will pay for them, for example - but no-one would consider this to be cheating, even though it makes use of information that is normally hidden in the source code.
Finally, on another point, some people do use scripts to play on nethack.alt.org. It's a good way to grind your way to the top of the scoreboard. The scripts aren't clever enough to play for you, but they can repeat a sequence of actions to raise your score. It's not nice, and really the game should make it impossible to grind a high score in this way, but it's not really cheating as it could be done by hand.
Remember folks, although the remote attestation features of TCPA could be used by online services to force you to use a particular "trusted" application/OS stack, locking you in to a configuration like "IE on Vista", that's not why they are there.
The point of TCPA isn't to enforce DRM or strengthen software monopolies. It's all about things that benefit you, like preventing cheating in online games, and... erm... many other things.
TCPA is a misunderstood technology. The EFF, the FSF and security experts are just making a knee-jerk reaction to something that they don't understand. Let me explain:
1. TCPA doesn't take away your ability to run whatever software you want. If every online service requires you to use (say) Vista, and uses TCPA to enforce this, you can just opt out of the Internet entirely and carry on running Linux or.*BSD or whatever. It's your choice.
2. TCPA doesn't spy on you, although it might be used to prevent you modifying software that does. But then you can just opt out of using that software. Again, it's your choice.
So, say yes to TCPA! Like atomic bombs and subdermal RFID chips, the technology isn't inherently evil, and it will certainly never be abused to reduce competition in the software marketplace, preventing free software interoperating with online services.
That's still vulnerable to this problem because ssh -X gives the remote application access to your complete X desktop. Indeed, the OpenSSH man page confirms this:
X11 forwarding should be enabled with caution. Users with the ability to bypass file permissions on the remote host (for the user's X authorization database) can access the local X11 display through the forwarded connection. An attacker may then be able to perform activities such as keystroke monitoring.
So, to run Firefox securely, don't just run it as another user. Run it on a separate X server too, using xnest, Xvnc or (even better) VMware. The sux utility has also been suggested, but I am not convinced - malware running within Firefox rather than launching a separate process will still be able to log keystrokes.
I don't know enough about the TPM design and Vista to know if they have implemented that sort of DRM. Any video format that can run on Windows XP is probably susceptible to a key interception attack. But don't underestimate the potential for DRM in the future - it's an excellent technology to create platform lock-in, which is why Microsoft and Apple think it's so great.
That sort of DRM is one of the main reasons for the introduction of TCPA and TPM chips. But it's not available on all computers at present, so the "remote attestation" features that actually prevent you using an "untrusted" media player, video driver or operating system are not yet in use. As you suggest, there is still a "Windows XP hole" through which keys can be intercepted, and this can still be used to make third-party clones of media player software. Someday, however, DRM schemes will begin to require "Vista + TCPA", and without the ability to obtain the private key from your own TCPA chip, you won't be able to get any other software to pass remote attestation and give you access to whatever you paid for. It'll be the most extreme case of vendor lock-in ever seen.
And yes, the TCPA designers have thought about virtualisation, sniffing the bus between the CPU and TPM, and other clever tricks to get around the security. Present generation DRM is futile because it's software only and new software can always be written to mimic the original software. But next generation DRM will be built into your CPU. That doesn't mean it can't still be attacked and cracked, but it does mean that it will be much harder: perhaps even impossible for the majority of people, if special (hardware) tools or skills are required. (I think that differential power analysis might be a useful way to obtain the private key from a TPM - a security expert once told me that it is essentially impossible to prevent private keys being extracted from smart cards by power analysis, if the attacker has sufficient time to carry out the attack).
I did see one sort of hack for MS DRM but it was limited in what it could do...if you had a valid DRM "licence" for the protected file you could use the hack tool to create a non-DRM copy of the file. But it couldn't unlock a file for which you didn't have a valid key.
That's fine, that's all that is needed. A third-party Linux/Mac client would mimic the behaviour of the official client, and from the perspective of the BBC servers, the two would be indistinguishable. A lot of programming effort might be required to clone the Microsoft client, but now there are two good reasons to do it: (1) we want to watch BBC programmes on Linux and Mac, and (2) we don't want our video recordings to disappear after X days.
And in software patent free Europe, the BBC has no DMCA-style legal recourse (that I know of) to stop this. I suspect that the third-party client will be popular with Windows users as well as Linux/Mac/whatever users because of the optional nature of the digital restrictions.
I am planning to sell embedded-like boxes with an OS (Linux or BSD) and this code... Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
It sounds like you are planning to use an embedded version of Linux that does not support dynamic linking well, e.g. uClinux on some MMU-less CPUs. That suggests you will be using non-mainstream libraries such as uClibc which might have special licencing requirements, particularly if statically linked. You should ask your question again on the mailing list or forum for the specific embedded Linux that you intend to use, because general Linux licencing advice may not apply. Find out what licences do apply and seek legal advice.
One other thing. Remember that even if your Linux distribution does incorporate GPLv3-only code in the future, that cannot stop you from distributing the current version under the GPLv2 if you find the GPLv3 terms objectionable in some way.
Basically, making non-free software for Linux really isn't a big deal - at least, no more so than making non-free software for any other OS. Check the licence terms on the libraries that you make use of, and use dynamic linking to avoid having to build LGPL'ed code into your program. This is exactly what you would do if you were making non-free software for Windows or Mac.
GPLv3 does not affect this advice, because even if GPLv3 is incompatible with your requirements in some way, you can just continue to use GPLv2. GPLv3 doesn't automatically supercede GPLv2 - you'll only be forced to adopt GPLv3 licencing terms if you incorporate GPLv3-only code.
Thanks for the suggestion of WiiCR, but I don't have the CPU power for transcoding, so using a Linux PC for media playback continues to be the best option. I could replace that machine if I had an XBox Media Centre-like program for the Wii, and I think that Nintendo are missing a golden opportunity by not supplying one. But thankyou for the suggestion anyway. WiiCR is certainly a clever hack - it demonstrates the lengths that people will go to in order to use the Wii as a media player.
This is a needed feature. This Saturday, I explained to a relative why I needed two computers connected to my TV. I said it was because the PC couldn't run the Wii games and because the Wii couldn't play video files and music. After a demo, she remarked that being able to access a digital music library on the TV was handy. I had to advise her that using an old PC would be the best way, because the Wii is missing this important feature. She could not be expected to set up WiiCR etc., so perhaps this counts as a "lost sale".
Slashdot Mirror
By making the solution Windows only, the BBC are forcing you to buy commercial software from Microsoft in order to view their programmes. This is just like saying "You must have a Sky subscription to view BBC programmes".
Because we all pay for those BBC programmes with the special TV tax, this is unacceptable. We should be able to view the programmes without having to pay for an OS. Making a version for Mac doesn't change that, as it's still not free. Where's the equivalent of "Freeview" - "no subscription required"?
I don't care about 4od or Sky because my TV licence money has not paid for them. They're Windows only? Fine, whatever, I won't watch them. But the BBC's iPlayer is different, because my TV licence money has paid for it. Even though I have the required hardware and a decent net connection, I can't use it, because I don't have Windows XP. Apparently, I need to buy more software for my "television".
(Refer to the previous version of this topic for various reasons why it's a bad thing - there isn't enough news, so there have to be repeats...)
When the word patent is used as an adjective, one meaning is:How did we get from that meaning toAnd all patents seem to be obfuscated in this way. Perl scripts are more readable - at least those can be interpreted by a machine! Why isn't it a requirement that the information be presented so that (a) it is clear what is patented, and (b) once the patent expires, the information can be used by others?
Just another way in which the patent system needs reform, IMO.
I'm pretty sure this is it:
That's a different flaw in Java Web Start.
Right now, in this topic, I can see three possible links to Java flaws that "could be it". It's great that contributors to this topic have been able to dig up these links, but really, the original article should have included some details about the exploit so that we would all be in no doubt about what it actually involves. As it is, both the submission and the ZDnet article include no details at all. Nothing. What's the point of that? It's about as effective as raising the "terror alert" to "critical".
Seems that the flaw is most likely this one: http://www.auscert.org.au/render.html?it=7664 - it's an image decoding bug.
That 26% would support the devil himself if he was (or pretended to be):
1. Christian (ironic isn't it?)
2. Republican
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis, 1935
I must admit I was initially unsure about voting for Adolf Hitler, but when I heard about his sensible pro-life stance and opposition to non-Christians, I was all for him. I mean, those are the issues that really matter, right? His foreign policy decisions have also been first rate. I think the invasion of France has been a damn good idea, and we'll definitely defeat the insurgents in the next few months. And with their new powers, the Gestapo have been doing a fine job of eradicating the terrorist threat in the Fatherland. I often see them making arrests, which just goes to show how lucky we are to have them - our enemies are everywhere. I'm sure that the stories of human rights abuses in internment camps like Auschwitz are just liberal lies. So that's why I support our President. He's a fine Christian man, and I will not even listen to anyone who doesn't think so.
The only way to be sure of these points, is to use DRM. How else do you do it, ask the user before the video plays?
My post must have been unclear, please allow me to clarify.
(1) The BBC is already using a system that detects your country of origin based on your IP address. If you're not connecting from the UK, you can't get certain content from their website. This is implemented by a simple security check.
(2) The "licence-fee payer" login would be checked by a BBC server before files were served. Login schemes are already used by many websites, including this one. The technology is mature and very secure when properly implemented.
(3) Limiting the range of programmes available online is a job for the BBC webmasters, who have full control of the files available through their own servers. They can simply avoid uploading certain programmes. The BBC already uses this technique to limit on-demand access to certain radio programmes in order to comply with music licencing requirements.
None of these involve DRM. The security is all on the server side.
The point I am making is these achieve the same result as using Microsoft DRM (which can be bypassed in any case by off-air recording) with the result that access to BBC programmes can be platform-independent for all licence fee payers. Sorry if this is unclear, I am tired.
A cross-platform solution is what we need: DRM and OS lock-in are two different issues and the real issue here is OS lock-in.
I see what you're saying. And I agree that if the player software could run on a free OS, then that would be the Internet equivalent of "Freeview" that I mentioned at the end of my post. Licence fee payers would have access to the programmes without a requirement to pay the Microsoft tax. That solution would seem satisfactory, if not ideal.
However, the use of DRM does limit viewers to the platforms that the BBC supports, and I do not think this is desirable.
It's not paranoia, it's commercial sensitivity.
Fine, but they could achieve the same results by (1) refusing to serve the content to people outside the UK, (2) requiring a "licence-fee payer" login to download anything, and (3) limiting the range of programmes available online in order to satisfy the requirements of commercial co-producers. There's no need for DRM, especially as the BBC is already using a system to restrict some content to UK users only.
Now, there is an obvious objection to (1) and (2). Someone could download a programme in the UK, then put it on Bittorrent. But that's a silly objection, firstly because that same person could capture the programme from a TV broadcast, and secondly because that person could crack the DRM. Microsoft DRM is as vulnerable to attack as any other sort of DRM.
The use of DRM in this case is basically equivalent to saying "You can't watch BBC programmes without a Sky subscription". Sure, the delivery medium is the Internet not digital satellite, and the "Sky subscription" is a "Windows XP licence", but the effect is the same - you have to pay a third party in order to watch licence-fee funded programmes. We need an equivalent of "Freeview" that will work for anyone at no cost, but because Microsoft DRM is being used, the BBC has excluded that possibility.
his webpage redirects the browser to steam://open/main, which will open the main Steam window. The user never sees the actual url... some of the uglier ones have confirmation screens I believe, but launching a game or connecting to a server does not.
It really bothers me that a Steam game server (e.g. for CS:S) can force your computer to open any webpage as soon as it connects. This is used by some CS:S admins to make welcome screens with persistent scoreboards. But an Internet Explorer widget is used, and this seems a very obvious vector for exploits - it is also annoying. Do you know of any way of turning it off?
Yeah, good going. Stolen plate reported, different make/model - instant red flag. Perhaps the terrorists in your world play make-believe like you do!
No, this is crap. Over here in England, there have been cases where people have copied licence plates, often in order to dodge the Congestion Charge: the special city road tax that is implemented using automatic number plate recognition (ANPR). They look out for a car of the same make and model as they drive around, note down the number, and then get a copy of the licence plate made.
In order to stop this, the Government added new laws to make it more difficult to get licence plates made. If you want to get a new licence plate from a reputable dealership or mechanic, you have to prove you own the car by producing all the documentation for it. And two forms of ID. Unfortunately this didn't help at all, because licence plates can be bought on the black market.
So the new solution is to RFID chip every car. Luckily, there could never be any way of cloning an RFID chip... The new solution does have the added benefit of making the sensor equipment very cheap - no image recognition required - so it can be more widely deployed. Just one more step towards a log of every action you ever take... only then will we be safe from the terrorists, right?
If regular criminals can clone cars, resourceful terrorists won't have much difficulty. Or they won't use cars at all. It's security theatre again, an excuse for a new tax. It's bullshit, and there's evidence from the UK that shows it's good for nothing but milking more money out of you.
2) Have the software "phone home" that it's actually being used, when it's used.
Yes! Every day Linux Genuine Advantage helps customers all over the world who are victims of software piracy get genuine. If you got your Linux for free, you should upgrade today to get the following exciting new features:
- Closed source, for extra Security Through Obscurity(tm),
- Compatibility with the latest viruses and malware,
- Innovative new Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) to help you manage your digital rights,
- DirectX 10.
Anyway, you don't want an OS that was written by hackers, do you?These laws seem to presuppose that the robot will have a human-like mind that is capable of understanding concepts like "injure", "inaction", "human being" and "harm". Asimov was being optimistic about the ease of making an AI that was even capable of understanding these ideas, let alone applying them to the real world. Still, sci-fi would be very dull if it wasn't full of wild ideas and crazy predictions.
At this stage of development of an AI I can trust the computer only to show a letter 'a' on the screen when I press the 'a' key.
I think it can be summarised like this:
- Current AIs are not clever enough to be in charge of weapons, because they aren't capable of understanding when they should be used.
- Science fiction AIs are too clever to be in charge of weapons, because they always use them to take over the world.
On the whole, it sounds like a really really bad idea to give an AI a gun, no matter how smart the AI might be.
Why should I pay $540 for the course when I can learn the same skills from certain not-so-friendly groups and actually also get paid for it! Saudi Ozzie, here I come.
Terrorist training isn't what it once was. Modern terrorists have difficulty even making bombs that can actually explode.
Also I heard that terrorist summer camps are actually a front for some sort of fundamentalist church. So not only do you not learn how to be an effective bomber, you also get brainwashed with a load of crazy nonsense about Jeebus and vegetarian T-Rexes. All considered, I'd rather pay up and learn about explosives from some proper experts.
Oh and by the way you can use Acrobat 8 now.
Ah, a minor improvement. It did strike me as particularly incompetent that Adobe's DRM scheme did not even work with the latest version of their own product, but then DRM is all about incompatibility and frustration for legitimate users.
Yes, it's true. Sadly, early transcribers of the book left out the stuff they didn't understand. In addition to a number of now-forgotten sections describing the role of evolution in the creation of life, this included the following cryptic verses:
:wq and then make.
2:2 And on the seventh day God said
2:3 And God watched gcc running and sanctified it, because it would have taken Him at least two weeks to write the whole thing in machine code.
Unfortunately, those bright people don't get to make technical decisions.
The British Library recently introduced SED, an electronic document delivery system. With SED, you can order electronic copies of journal papers and articles from their archives. Great idea! Previously, you had to wait for the documents to come through the post, and that would take a week or so. Now you get them by email in a couple of working days.
Except that the documents are crippled by Adobe DRM, which imposes the following restrictions:
- You can only view them using certain specific versions of Acrobat Reader (6 or 7) - the latest version is not recommended.
- The software only works on Windows 2000 or XP. No Linux support, no Mac support. Vista might work, but again, it's not recommended.
- You can only look at each document for a limited time, and you can only print it once.
So, if you want to use the service, you'd better hope that you have (a) the right version of Windows, (b) the right version of Acrobat Reader, (c) a reliable net connection, and, most importantly, (d) a very reliable printer that won't chew up the document. Unless you're a filthy dirty pirate, of course.If Adobe managed to convince the British Library to put up with this ridiculous system, I am sure that Microsoft will have no difficulty convincing them about their archive "solution". If SED is anything to go by, it'll be another awful implementation of a great idea.
It can keep signals...out,...even the fabled electronics-destroying electromagnetic pulse generated by a nuclear blast.
Now that's serious product testing.
You're right that you can expend a probably awesome effort to synchronize a cheat program with the RNG(your game is being played on a remote server, so you can't just search through memory--the client is completely untrusted), but only if the server is using a PRNG and not a "true" (physical-source) RNG(or, in practice, a high-quality PRNG).
Now that is an interesting hack. Nethack appears to just use the libc random functions which are most definitely pseudo-random and seeded from time(), so it should be possible to predict what will happen in the game given certain movements, allowing a cheater to effectively "play ahead" on his own machine, taking snapshots which allow bad moves to be undone. The best move sequence can be sent to the server.
Depending on your viewpoint, this might not even be cheating, because you are simply using your knowledge of the game's internals in order to play better. You are not using dynamic information about the current game, but rather using static information about the game software. Some Nethack players take notes about items they find in order to help identify them - you can identify many items if you know how much a shopkeeper will pay for them, for example - but no-one would consider this to be cheating, even though it makes use of information that is normally hidden in the source code.
Finally, on another point, some people do use scripts to play on nethack.alt.org. It's a good way to grind your way to the top of the scoreboard. The scripts aren't clever enough to play for you, but they can repeat a sequence of actions to raise your score. It's not nice, and really the game should make it impossible to grind a high score in this way, but it's not really cheating as it could be done by hand.
Remember folks, although the remote attestation features of TCPA could be used by online services to force you to use a particular "trusted" application/OS stack, locking you in to a configuration like "IE on Vista", that's not why they are there.
.*BSD or whatever. It's your choice.
The point of TCPA isn't to enforce DRM or strengthen software monopolies. It's all about things that benefit you, like preventing cheating in online games, and... erm... many other things.
TCPA is a misunderstood technology. The EFF, the FSF and security experts are just making a knee-jerk reaction to something that they don't understand. Let me explain:
1. TCPA doesn't take away your ability to run whatever software you want. If every online service requires you to use (say) Vista, and uses TCPA to enforce this, you can just opt out of the Internet entirely and carry on running Linux or
2. TCPA doesn't spy on you, although it might be used to prevent you modifying software that does. But then you can just opt out of using that software. Again, it's your choice.
So, say yes to TCPA! Like atomic bombs and subdermal RFID chips, the technology isn't inherently evil, and it will certainly never be abused to reduce competition in the software marketplace, preventing free software interoperating with online services.
That's still vulnerable to this problem because ssh -X gives the remote application access to your complete X desktop. Indeed, the OpenSSH man page confirms this:So, to run Firefox securely, don't just run it as another user. Run it on a separate X server too, using xnest, Xvnc or (even better) VMware. The sux utility has also been suggested, but I am not convinced - malware running within Firefox rather than launching a separate process will still be able to log keystrokes.
I don't know enough about the TPM design and Vista to know if they have implemented that sort of DRM. Any video format that can run on Windows XP is probably susceptible to a key interception attack. But don't underestimate the potential for DRM in the future - it's an excellent technology to create platform lock-in, which is why Microsoft and Apple think it's so great.
That sort of DRM is one of the main reasons for the introduction of TCPA and TPM chips. But it's not available on all computers at present, so the "remote attestation" features that actually prevent you using an "untrusted" media player, video driver or operating system are not yet in use. As you suggest, there is still a "Windows XP hole" through which keys can be intercepted, and this can still be used to make third-party clones of media player software. Someday, however, DRM schemes will begin to require "Vista + TCPA", and without the ability to obtain the private key from your own TCPA chip, you won't be able to get any other software to pass remote attestation and give you access to whatever you paid for. It'll be the most extreme case of vendor lock-in ever seen.
And yes, the TCPA designers have thought about virtualisation, sniffing the bus between the CPU and TPM, and other clever tricks to get around the security. Present generation DRM is futile because it's software only and new software can always be written to mimic the original software. But next generation DRM will be built into your CPU. That doesn't mean it can't still be attacked and cracked, but it does mean that it will be much harder: perhaps even impossible for the majority of people, if special (hardware) tools or skills are required. (I think that differential power analysis might be a useful way to obtain the private key from a TPM - a security expert once told me that it is essentially impossible to prevent private keys being extracted from smart cards by power analysis, if the attacker has sufficient time to carry out the attack).
I did see one sort of hack for MS DRM but it was limited in what it could do...if you had a valid DRM "licence" for the protected file you could use the hack tool to create a non-DRM copy of the file. But it couldn't unlock a file for which you didn't have a valid key.
That's fine, that's all that is needed. A third-party Linux/Mac client would mimic the behaviour of the official client, and from the perspective of the BBC servers, the two would be indistinguishable. A lot of programming effort might be required to clone the Microsoft client, but now there are two good reasons to do it: (1) we want to watch BBC programmes on Linux and Mac, and (2) we don't want our video recordings to disappear after X days.
And in software patent free Europe, the BBC has no DMCA-style legal recourse (that I know of) to stop this. I suspect that the third-party client will be popular with Windows users as well as Linux/Mac/whatever users because of the optional nature of the digital restrictions.
I am planning to sell embedded-like boxes with an OS (Linux or BSD) and this code... Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
It sounds like you are planning to use an embedded version of Linux that does not support dynamic linking well, e.g. uClinux on some MMU-less CPUs. That suggests you will be using non-mainstream libraries such as uClibc which might have special licencing requirements, particularly if statically linked. You should ask your question again on the mailing list or forum for the specific embedded Linux that you intend to use, because general Linux licencing advice may not apply. Find out what licences do apply and seek legal advice.
One other thing. Remember that even if your Linux distribution does incorporate GPLv3-only code in the future, that cannot stop you from distributing the current version under the GPLv2 if you find the GPLv3 terms objectionable in some way.
Parent has good answers.
Basically, making non-free software for Linux really isn't a big deal - at least, no more so than making non-free software for any other OS. Check the licence terms on the libraries that you make use of, and use dynamic linking to avoid having to build LGPL'ed code into your program. This is exactly what you would do if you were making non-free software for Windows or Mac.
GPLv3 does not affect this advice, because even if GPLv3 is incompatible with your requirements in some way, you can just continue to use GPLv2. GPLv3 doesn't automatically supercede GPLv2 - you'll only be forced to adopt GPLv3 licencing terms if you incorporate GPLv3-only code.
Thanks for the suggestion of WiiCR, but I don't have the CPU power for transcoding, so using a Linux PC for media playback continues to be the best option. I could replace that machine if I had an XBox Media Centre-like program for the Wii, and I think that Nintendo are missing a golden opportunity by not supplying one. But thankyou for the suggestion anyway. WiiCR is certainly a clever hack - it demonstrates the lengths that people will go to in order to use the Wii as a media player.
This is a needed feature. This Saturday, I explained to a relative why I needed two computers connected to my TV. I said it was because the PC couldn't run the Wii games and because the Wii couldn't play video files and music. After a demo, she remarked that being able to access a digital music library on the TV was handy. I had to advise her that using an old PC would be the best way, because the Wii is missing this important feature. She could not be expected to set up WiiCR etc., so perhaps this counts as a "lost sale".