"Yours is flawed because it starts with the assumption that it is."
Yes, I thought I made this clear in my post. Whatever. Both proofs are nothing more than mathematical tautologies. All that they do tell us is that, as far as this proof is conscerned, aleph null can be either a natural number or not, both are consistent.
If we change the definitions of vegtable, fruit, and mineral so that the tomato is now a vegtable, or a mineral, does this change the nature of the tomato? Using this definition of 'natural number' only changes the names that I have to use to describe the result. Can I use the term 'the squisshes' again? What, if any practical differences would there be to defining natural numbers as a_n = a_n-1 + 1 with a_1 = 1 AND b_n+1 = b_n - 1 with b_1 = (aleph null) ? (In general, would this break anything?)
"1/(aleph null) = 0" Not always true. Choose a random real number on the interval (0,1) inclusive or exclusive, it doesn't matter. What is the probability of choosing any particular number in this interval? 1/infinity. If this equals exactly zero, then the sum of all the probabilities is also zero, which means that it is impossible to choose any number. But you can, so 1/infinity cannot equal exactly zero.
Think of this in the real world, Take a bar of any particualr length. Cut it in two pieces. what is the chance that one of the pieces is a particular length? 1/infinity. What is the chance that it is a length smaller than the original and greater than zero? 1. The infinite number of possible places that you can cut offset the 1/infinite chance of any particular length.
1/(aleph null) then, must be a finite, nonzero value. And if aleph null is a natural number, then 1/(aleph null) is the smallest possible rational number. So why is 1/infinity usually equal to zero? Because, unless you have an infinite number of them, or you are dealing with other infinitesimals, their sum is not big enough to change any other finite value.
N = some finite integer
R = some finite real number
P = some infinite number
R + N*(1/infinity) = R
R + P*(1/infinity) = something that depends on the relative values of P and infinity. Anything is possible. What the value of R is may or may not matter.
*Sigh* I guess that I'll have to stop using squissh and start using aleph null. Pity, I liked squissh better. Oh well.
Your simple proof for the naturals is flawed, because it starts with the assumptin that aleph null is not a natural number. It should come as no surprise that you conclude that it is not a natural number. Simple proof of this: infinity + 1 = infinity. Aleph null = infinity. (one of them anyway) So, if we start with the assumption that aleph null is a natural number:
"First, we observe that for every natural number x, the following property is always true: x < x+1" Except for aleph null, because aleph null + 1 = aleph null. It follows then that z = x + 1 = x. There is no contradiction. Therefore x is larger than all other nautral numbers. I know that this does not constitute proof that aleph null is a natural number, but it does mean that this proof cannot determine whether it is or not.
If we assume that aleph null is a natural number, the largest rational on the interval (0,1) exclusive is 1 - 1/(aleph null) The only way to get a smaller number than 1/(aleph null) is to use a 'larger' form of infinity, like the number of reals. (whatever it's name is, I imagine you'll tell me). But then the result in not a rational. Or if you prefer, a=(aleph null - 1), b=aleph null. Redo your proof, there is no contradiction.
"The number of natural numbers is called aleph null. It is not a natural number."
A better proof would be welcome.
"In other words, you have some of the vocabulary, but none of the knowledge."Yup. Would I be calling aleph null squissh if that wasn't the case? knowledge != inteligence, just facts.
" Wow, you're just not making any sense." From the viewpoint of a theoretical mathematician, probably. Which leads naturally to,
"You are clearly a wannabe math guy who didn't actually pay attention to his courses."
No. I am an engineer who had a math major for a roommate. I don't care much for theory if it does not apply to the problem at hand. Most of what you have said, while it may be correct from a mathematician's point of view, is simply irrelevant.
The problem at hand is to find some way to find a number larger than the median in an array of numbers in less time than it takes to look at all of the numbers. The answer is simple, the largest possible number. If this is being done in a computer, then that computer can represent any number in the array. And the computer can represent the largest value of that type. If this is being done on paper, then I can represent infinity very easily (just not in a/. post, I tried) Infinity is large enough to satisfy the problem in all cases.
I know that what I said about countably infinite is not the proper definition. I used google, The proper definition of a countably infinite set is can it be mapped one to one with the set of natural numbers. Kind of a useless definition when I was trying to prove that a) the natural number set is countably infinite and b)that the number of natural numbers is also a natural number.
While I may be wrong in calling the number of natural numbers 'countably intinite', the name is irrelevant. Since I do not know it's proper name, I'll call it squissh:^) What is it? well, I'll start counting them. Starting with 1.
1.. #1
2.. #2
3.. #3
Hmmm. see a pattern? I do. The number of natural numbers is the same as the largest natural number, squissh. Which means that squissh is also a natural number, and it is larger than all other natural numbers. So if I have an array of arbitrarily large natural numbers, and can represent those numbers, then squissh is equal to or greater than their median. And since I can represent any natural number, I can also represent squissh. Done.
"What is <array_variable_type>_MAX for the naturals?" Squissh. If the computer has a variable type that can represent the naturals, then it can represent this number, whatever it is. If this variable type cannot represent this number, then it cannot represent all naturals, only a subset of them. And this means that there is a finite largest number that can be in the array, and that number can be represented. Always.
"What do you return when your type has no largest possible number, like a type which can hold any natural number?" Answered. Squissh. I'll just use the same variable type that the array used to return it. It has to fit, by definition. How to do so, from a computer engineering point of view, I have no clue. But since any computer capable of handling the type has already solved the problem, I do not have to worry about it.
"Infinity, whether countable or not, is not a natural number."
Only if it is not 'the number of natural numbers'
"You can get any natural number by starting from 0 and then adding 1 a finite number of times." " If I allow you to write a string of arbitrary, finite length consisting only of the digits 0-9, you can write any natural number."
This implies that all natural numbers are finite numbers. But the set of natural numbers is infinite, there is an infinite number of them. But I just showed that the number of nautral numbers is also a natural number. Which means that there is at least one infinite natural number.
"You're confusing the size of the natural numbers (aleph naught) with the membership of the natural numbers. Just because the size of the natural numbers is infinite doesn't mean that anything which can represent the naturals can represent infinity; quite the contrary." I just proved that they must be one and the same. That this is the case should be obvious. This is not the case for all sets of numbers, or even all countable sets, but it is for the naturals.
First off, wrong. It could represent countably infinite, but not necessarily uncountably infinite. The set of natural numbers is countably infinite. (there is a finite number of natural numbers between any two members of the set) Any machine capable of handling an unlimited range of natural numbers can represent countably infinite - because it is a natural number. (The set of real numbers is uncountably infinite, there is an infinite number of real numbers between any two (different) real numbers) You have to specify which infinity you want, but since we were limited to natural numbers by the machine, only countably infinite is possible. But it is good enough.
Secondly, any machine capable of storing an array of numbers can return the largest possible number stored in whatever type of variable the array is composed of. Which means that:
return <array_variable_type>_MAX;
as was proposed in the first place, is ALWAYS possible, and will always return a value equal to or greater than the median value.
The professor who proposed this was clearly a scientist, not an engineer.
Any machine capable of handling unlimited range can handle this return value. By definition. It may be algorithmically inpossible to determine the median of an array without examining each element, but finding a number larger than the median is dirt simple. The only way this simple algorithm could fail is if half or more of the values are infinity. (oh, and any algorithm would fail, 'cause there isn't a larger number!)
Mars is about twice a far from the sun as earth is. That give the flare twice as much time to spread out , and should result in about 1/4 the radation. And unless you manage to increase the air pressure, you will always be inside of some structure. 1/2 inch of glass would do something.
How would the wobble cause problems?/.'ers at least don't need regular periods of light and dark./puzzled/
Yes I do get it. Remote attestation, as you define it is what most people/groups pushing trusted computing want, and if what I proposed is implimented, many of the things the pushers want will no longer work. I know that. Almost all of the things that will no longer work are things that I do not want to work. It would be useless for those purposes. This does not mean that remote attestation, as I proposed, is useless. And I would say it is much more usefull to me. I get the feeling we are arguing about semantics though. Is a tomato a fruit? And does the tomato care?
I disagree that what I proposed can be achieved without special hardware. If it could, then remote attestation as you described could also, because the only difference is who signed the binary. (different from which key was used to do the signing).
Re:The chip is designed to enable remote attestati
on
TCPA Support in Linux
·
· Score: 1
No, there is no reason for the *AA's to push it.
Remote attestation still works as long as no program, running on the computer, can get the keys, regardless of permissions. That way, for example, when some script kiddy roots my banks webserver, I can ask it, are you running only software the bank signed? And it can say NO! And I won't give that server my bank account info.
On the other hand, the bank could sign whatever binaries it wanted for it's own machine, or hack the OS that it was running, and sign the changes, so the NSA wouldn't know that it's backdoor had been ripped out....
"Or the *AA's get the common carrier status of isp's revoked, and the isp's are required by law to prevent the latest and greatest encrypted/anonymous/p2p filesharing thing.
Scary thought, TCPA has very little to do with that, it could happen just as easily without it.
That and the fact that lots of people (like me) have only one choice for broadband, competition is hard to come by.
This should change, but it is a problem in and of itself, TCPA or not. "
Yes. My point though was that these problems reduce competition. Competition is necessary for the market, and most of your reasons to not be worried about TCPA is that the market will not allow it.
What if the TCPA chip was designed with a way to get the key out, (a back door) that was not accessable from the CPU at all. A connector that connects only to the chip, and nothing else on the motherboard? That way I could get the key, sign my modified binaries, and install them on the computer. But there is no way for a rootkit/virus etc. to do the same. No physical access to the key.
"Hell yeah."
Question, which do you think is more likely, widespread TCPA use and lockdown, or something like I just proposed? My bet is TCPA, and that is why I am worried.
Hmmmm... I don't really want the key, it's the chip itself I want. Mounted on a PCI card with enough hardware so that when the card applies power to the chip, the chip thinks that all of the signals that it is getting are from the original hardware booting. And then it signs the BIOS, which is data that was read from the real one. Is that possible?
One is all it takes to rip a whole bunch of DVD's - which is what they are worried about. Or to decrypt someone's encrypted M$ office files, (with their permission of course) or decrypt a driver so I can write a linux one for that piece of hardware. Or so I can install linux in the first place. You get the idea.
Most of your rebuttals basically say that TC won't succeed in doing what it has the ability to do because not enough people will require it. There is a lot of truth to this too. Market forces will work, as you said, making it very hard for many things to be restricted. I did not (and do not) say that all of this is very likely, just possible. But I do not say never. And that worries me.
Hmmm. that answers your paragraphs #'s 1, 2, 4, & 5.
The 'media' servers I imagine would not serve media. Only decryption keys. For music, movies, and ebooks (and copyrighted immages on the internet, and copyrightes newssites, and...just about any media that you do not have the copyright on, and maby some you do ). And since Copyright gives a monopoly on those, if the *AA's and publishers encrypt all of their stuff... I do not think that there is enough competetion in this area to let market forces work. In fact the *AA's have enough clout to possibly force other publishers to comply. Anti-trust stuff might stop it, but the DOJ doesn't seem too interested. This is not a slam-dunk for the *AA's, just an easy beachead. Don't personally care? When the *AA's force all distribution chains to follow suit or go out of buisness? (because they would lose the *AA's buisness?)
/.? no,/.'s isp (more later)
Email. TCPA only auth email servers. Think anti-spam stuff, or FBI crap. And no signed pgp binaries. So, while you could sign it, you could not send it. Likely? we covered that already.
The isp thing. Think TCPA + great firewall of china + FBI needs to track terrorists. Or the *AA's get the common carrier status of isp's revoked, and the isp's are required by law to prevent the latest and greatest encrypted/anonymous/p2p filesharing thing. That and the fact that lots of people (like me) have only one choice for broadband, competition is hard to come by.
Remote attestation is still a good thing even if the owner controls it. It says, I have not been hacked, cracked, rooted, warzed, or internet-wormed. Much less usefull to others, true, but not useless.
"let's attack those who use it for evil." Excellent idea. Let's start by making trusted computing something that they cannot abuse, by giving remote attestation control to the owner. Other solutions: Copyright law needs reform. Like 20 years from the first intentional publication, no exceptions extensions or refunds.[1] And anything that dissallows fair use is inelligable for copyright protection. (they can still sell it if they want, but when someone cracks it, it is now public domain!) Bye-bye DRM'ed music and movies. Without that incentive, the chance of TCP being used for evil is much less, 'cause it is that much less widespread, and has that much less money pushing it.
[1] Copyright Disney, of course. Fortunately brains will never be TCPA compliant, or they would restrict this quote too.
You missed a key point here. All TPM hardware is emulated. The actual hardware is not TPM compliant. The catch is the TPM key, as you said.
Would it be possible to rip the chip itself out of a TPM compliant system, and fake a 'boot' within the emulator well enough to fool the chip into thinking it was a real boot? The emulator would need a hardware component to interface with the chip....?
Cannot build the hardware? Nonsense, other replies said as much. But, could you distribute the signed binary, without the key? Wouldn't that be a 'further restriction'?
"I doubt you will find any open source applications with that restriction" Or the ability to "' display any media or even web pages because of DRM'" So much for Firefox and xine.
The only way that this will not be a huge problem is if open source reaches critical mass and the media companies can (and some DO) make more money off the open source stuff than they can off of the DRM'ed stuff. What TC has the ability to do is to make open source irrelevant to anyone who wants to communicate with the world in any electronic way.
Your 'just turn the feature off' is idiotic, because it is not possible. Sure you can turn it off, and then the program stops doing what it is supposed to do - that is the whole point of TC in this application!
"the media server will know. Perhaps some windows applications will be written to not function in this regard as well "
And the DRM^h^h^h 'media' server will refuse to give the decryption keys to any program not written that way. And without those keys there will be (if they want) nothing that works. You won't be able to open your M$ office files, 'cause they are encrypted. You won't be able to access your financial data, either online, or in your own files. No music, no movies, no posting to/., no encrypting your own email with your own pgp key, no IP address from the ISP, (and no routing without it!) I could probably come up with more, but why? Isn't that bad enough?
Your whole argument for on #2 is 'they have proven themselves technically incompetent so far...' True enough. But people occasionally learn from their mistakes, specially when there is a huge wad of cash as incentive. Do I want to bet on their continued incompetence? NO!!
I agree with the EFF on this. If I can control the remote attestation part, TC is a great idea, it puts me even more in control of my computer. If not, I potentially lose all control. If I don't control it, do I really own it?
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for corection, for instruction in righteousness:
When the original king james version translators did their thing, they took care to note which parts were literal translations of the greek, and which parts were put in by them to make it proper english. They did this with itallics Anything in itallics is a word inserted by the translators. Also, for the new testament, there in no punctuation of any sort in the original greek. All letters are capitalized, and not as much as spaces between the words, Like this: THENEWTESTAMENTWASWRITTENWITHCAPSLOCKONANDABUSTESS PACEBAR
So let's look at the verse again. Notice how your interpretation of the verse depends on that first 'is' being there. Also notice how it is in itallics. Take it out and reread the verse. Now it only says that those parts of scripture that are given by inspiration of god are profitable, etc. It allows for some scripture to not be given by god, and says nothing about the profitablity etc. of those scriptures.
There are many passages in the Bible that have greatly changed meanings when you move a comma around, or put in those itallic words etc. Other than looking at context or other passages, we no longer have the abillity to determine the correct meaning of these passages. Please try to understand the book that you are using, failure to do so will (as possibly in this example) lead to incorrect assumptions.
It may not be the installer. Windows ME did not like ~ in filenames. You couldn't transfer any file with that in the name over a windows share. You would get a 'file not found' error. Stupid.
471 million tons CO2 from coal fired electric plants, plus another 61 million tons fron natural gas and oil fired electric plants - 532 million tons CO2 for electricity.
From the link "Motor gasoline accounts for nearly two-thirds of transportation sector energy consumption." 2/3 of 473 million tons is about 315 million tons. (assumption that CO2 ~ energy, may not be true)
If you change the gg98rpt part of the link to gg99rpt, or gg02rpt etc, you can get figures as recent as 2002. A quick look shows that electric power has increased it's precentage of our CO2 output verses transportation since '97.
100% humidity does not mean that the air is 100% water vapor. It means that at that temprature, the air cannot hold any more water. See Wikipedia's info. 100% humidity at room temp, at sea level, is less than 3% water.
You are right that temperature difference is the primary driver of the weather engine, but violent weather always involves a lot of moist air. Most of the energy comes from the water vapor condencing out. That is why hurricanes cause a lot of rain!. From Wikipedia"Direct causes of weather are temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, cloud cover, wind speed, and elevation." I would add, 'in that order'.
" Air pressure is the pressure caused by the weight of air above any area in the Earth's atmosphere." 200 feet of water weights the same, whether as vapor or as liquid. ~ 33 feet of water causes 1 atmosphere of pressure. 200 feet of ocean, adjust for only 70% of earth surface is ocean ~=160 feet. 160/33 ~= 5 atmospheres of additional pressure.
"If the whole earth gets warmer, the difference of temperature in the levels of the atmosphere gets less and the weather engine runs more gently." No. If the heating is uniform, the difference will not change. If anything it will increase because the sun does not heat the air directly. It heats the ground/ocean, which then heats up the air - the air at the bottom, not the air at the top.
All of the tectonic plates rose the same? Hardly. They neither moved the same distance nor at the same time. Nor would it be required to explain all current effects. Not all contenental shelves were once dry, and there are many places that were under water that are not now. The only time that there was uniform up or down ocean level change that I am aware of was during the ice ages, when a lot of the water was in glaciers, and not the ocean.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I thought I made this clear in my post. Whatever. Both proofs are nothing more than mathematical tautologies. All that they do tell us is that, as far as this proof is conscerned, aleph null can be either a natural number or not, both are consistent.
If we change the definitions of vegtable, fruit, and mineral so that the tomato is now a vegtable, or a mineral, does this change the nature of the tomato? Using this definition of 'natural number' only changes the names that I have to use to describe the result. Can I use the term 'the squisshes' again? What, if any practical differences would there be to defining natural numbers as a_n = a_n-1 + 1 with a_1 = 1 AND b_n+1 = b_n - 1 with b_1 = (aleph null) ? (In general, would this break anything?)
"1/(aleph null) = 0" Not always true. Choose a random real number on the interval (0,1) inclusive or exclusive, it doesn't matter. What is the probability of choosing any particular number in this interval? 1/infinity. If this equals exactly zero, then the sum of all the probabilities is also zero, which means that it is impossible to choose any number. But you can, so 1/infinity cannot equal exactly zero.
Think of this in the real world, Take a bar of any particualr length. Cut it in two pieces. what is the chance that one of the pieces is a particular length? 1/infinity. What is the chance that it is a length smaller than the original and greater than zero? 1. The infinite number of possible places that you can cut offset the 1/infinite chance of any particular length.
1/(aleph null) then, must be a finite, nonzero value. And if aleph null is a natural number, then 1/(aleph null) is the smallest possible rational number. So why is 1/infinity usually equal to zero? Because, unless you have an infinite number of them, or you are dealing with other infinitesimals, their sum is not big enough to change any other finite value.
N = some finite integer
R = some finite real number
P = some infinite number
R + N*(1/infinity) = R
R + P*(1/infinity) = something that depends on the relative values of P and infinity. Anything is possible. What the value of R is may or may not matter.
Your simple proof for the naturals is flawed, because it starts with the assumptin that aleph null is not a natural number. It should come as no surprise that you conclude that it is not a natural number. Simple proof of this: infinity + 1 = infinity. Aleph null = infinity. (one of them anyway) So, if we start with the assumption that aleph null is a natural number:
"First, we observe that for every natural number x, the following property is always true: x < x+1" Except for aleph null, because aleph null + 1 = aleph null. It follows then that z = x + 1 = x. There is no contradiction. Therefore x is larger than all other nautral numbers. I know that this does not constitute proof that aleph null is a natural number, but it does mean that this proof cannot determine whether it is or not.
If we assume that aleph null is a natural number, the largest rational on the interval (0,1) exclusive is 1 - 1/(aleph null) The only way to get a smaller number than 1/(aleph null) is to use a 'larger' form of infinity, like the number of reals. (whatever it's name is, I imagine you'll tell me). But then the result in not a rational. Or if you prefer, a=(aleph null - 1), b=aleph null. Redo your proof, there is no contradiction.
"The number of natural numbers is called aleph null. It is not a natural number."
A better proof would be welcome.
"In other words, you have some of the vocabulary, but none of the knowledge."Yup. Would I be calling aleph null squissh if that wasn't the case? knowledge != inteligence, just facts.
"You are clearly a wannabe math guy who didn't actually pay attention to his courses."
No. I am an engineer who had a math major for a roommate. I don't care much for theory if it does not apply to the problem at hand. Most of what you have said, while it may be correct from a mathematician's point of view, is simply irrelevant.
The problem at hand is to find some way to find a number larger than the median in an array of numbers in less time than it takes to look at all of the numbers. The answer is simple, the largest possible number. If this is being done in a computer, then that computer can represent any number in the array. And the computer can represent the largest value of that type. If this is being done on paper, then I can represent infinity very easily (just not in a /. post, I tried) Infinity is large enough to satisfy the problem in all cases.
I know that what I said about countably infinite is not the proper definition. I used google, The proper definition of a countably infinite set is can it be mapped one to one with the set of natural numbers. Kind of a useless definition when I was trying to prove that a) the natural number set is countably infinite and b)that the number of natural numbers is also a natural number.
While I may be wrong in calling the number of natural numbers 'countably intinite', the name is irrelevant. Since I do not know it's proper name, I'll call it squissh :^) What is it? well, I'll start counting them. Starting with 1.
- 1
.. #1 - 2
.. #2 - 3
.. #3
Hmmm. see a pattern? I do. The number of natural numbers is the same as the largest natural number, squissh. Which means that squissh is also a natural number, and it is larger than all other natural numbers. So if I have an array of arbitrarily large natural numbers, and can represent those numbers, then squissh is equal to or greater than their median. And since I can represent any natural number, I can also represent squissh. Done."What is <array_variable_type>_MAX for the naturals?" Squissh. If the computer has a variable type that can represent the naturals, then it can represent this number, whatever it is. If this variable type cannot represent this number, then it cannot represent all naturals, only a subset of them. And this means that there is a finite largest number that can be in the array, and that number can be represented. Always.
"What do you return when your type has no largest possible number, like a type which can hold any natural number?" Answered. Squissh. I'll just use the same variable type that the array used to return it. It has to fit, by definition. How to do so, from a computer engineering point of view, I have no clue. But since any computer capable of handling the type has already solved the problem, I do not have to worry about it.
"Infinity, whether countable or not, is not a natural number."
Only if it is not 'the number of natural numbers'
"You can get any natural number by starting from 0 and then adding 1 a finite number of times."
" If I allow you to write a string of arbitrary, finite length consisting only of the digits 0-9, you can write any natural number."
This implies that all natural numbers are finite numbers. But the set of natural numbers is infinite, there is an infinite number of them. But I just showed that the number of nautral numbers is also a natural number. Which means that there is at least one infinite natural number.
"You're confusing the size of the natural numbers (aleph naught) with the membership of the natural numbers. Just because the size of the natural numbers is infinite doesn't mean that anything which can represent the naturals can represent infinity; quite the contrary." I just proved that they must be one and the same. That this is the case should be obvious. This is not the case for all sets of numbers, or even all countable sets, but it is for the naturals.
return <array_member_variable_type>_MAX;
Stop nitpicking.
Secondly, any machine capable of storing an array of numbers can return the largest possible number stored in whatever type of variable the array is composed of. Which means that :
return <array_variable_type>_MAX;
as was proposed in the first place, is ALWAYS possible, and will always return a value equal to or greater than the median value.
The professor who proposed this was clearly a scientist, not an engineer.
return infinity;
Any machine capable of handling unlimited range can handle this return value. By definition. It may be algorithmically inpossible to determine the median of an array without examining each element, but finding a number larger than the median is dirt simple. The only way this simple algorithm could fail is if half or more of the values are infinity. (oh, and any algorithm would fail, 'cause there isn't a larger number!)
Oh, right. Since setrlimit() seems to be in libc and not the kernel, it would seem that the kernel itself does nothing.
How would the wobble cause problems? /.'ers at least don't need regular periods of light and dark. /puzzled/
Limiting processes and threads per user stops fork bombs from being a problem, so there is no need to 'detect' them anymore.
Besides, a valid program could look like a fork bomb to a stupid detector. Setting limits avoids a false positive. It is a superior solution.
I disagree that what I proposed can be achieved without special hardware. If it could, then remote attestation as you described could also, because the only difference is who signed the binary. (different from which key was used to do the signing).
Yuck.
Remote attestation still works as long as no program, running on the computer, can get the keys, regardless of permissions. That way, for example, when some script kiddy roots my banks webserver, I can ask it, are you running only software the bank signed? And it can say NO! And I won't give that server my bank account info.
On the other hand, the bank could sign whatever binaries it wanted for it's own machine, or hack the OS that it was running, and sign the changes, so the NSA wouldn't know that it's backdoor had been ripped out....
Scary thought, TCPA has very little to do with that, it could happen just as easily without it.
That and the fact that lots of people (like me) have only one choice for broadband, competition is hard to come by.
This should change, but it is a problem in and of itself, TCPA or not. "
Yes. My point though was that these problems reduce competition. Competition is necessary for the market, and most of your reasons to not be worried about TCPA is that the market will not allow it.
What if the TCPA chip was designed with a way to get the key out, (a back door) that was not accessable from the CPU at all. A connector that connects only to the chip, and nothing else on the motherboard? That way I could get the key, sign my modified binaries, and install them on the computer. But there is no way for a rootkit/virus etc. to do the same. No physical access to the key.
"Hell yeah."
Question, which do you think is more likely, widespread TCPA use and lockdown, or something like I just proposed? My bet is TCPA, and that is why I am worried.
One is all it takes to rip a whole bunch of DVD's - which is what they are worried about. Or to decrypt someone's encrypted M$ office files, (with their permission of course) or decrypt a driver so I can write a linux one for that piece of hardware. Or so I can install linux in the first place. You get the idea.
Hmmm. that answers your paragraphs #'s 1, 2, 4, & 5.
The 'media' servers I imagine would not serve media. Only decryption keys. For music, movies, and ebooks (and copyrighted immages on the internet, and copyrightes newssites, and...just about any media that you do not have the copyright on, and maby some you do ). And since Copyright gives a monopoly on those, if the *AA's and publishers encrypt all of their stuff... I do not think that there is enough competetion in this area to let market forces work. In fact the *AA's have enough clout to possibly force other publishers to comply. Anti-trust stuff might stop it, but the DOJ doesn't seem too interested. This is not a slam-dunk for the *AA's, just an easy beachead. Don't personally care? When the *AA's force all distribution chains to follow suit or go out of buisness? (because they would lose the *AA's buisness?)
/.? no, /.'s isp (more later)
Email. TCPA only auth email servers. Think anti-spam stuff, or FBI crap. And no signed pgp binaries. So, while you could sign it, you could not send it. Likely? we covered that already.
The isp thing. Think TCPA + great firewall of china + FBI needs to track terrorists. Or the *AA's get the common carrier status of isp's revoked, and the isp's are required by law to prevent the latest and greatest encrypted/anonymous/p2p filesharing thing. That and the fact that lots of people (like me) have only one choice for broadband, competition is hard to come by.
Remote attestation is still a good thing even if the owner controls it. It says, I have not been hacked, cracked, rooted, warzed, or internet-wormed. Much less usefull to others, true, but not useless.
"let's attack those who use it for evil." Excellent idea. Let's start by making trusted computing something that they cannot abuse, by giving remote attestation control to the owner. Other solutions: Copyright law needs reform. Like 20 years from the first intentional publication, no exceptions extensions or refunds.[1] And anything that dissallows fair use is inelligable for copyright protection. (they can still sell it if they want, but when someone cracks it, it is now public domain!) Bye-bye DRM'ed music and movies. Without that incentive, the chance of TCP being used for evil is much less, 'cause it is that much less widespread, and has that much less money pushing it.
[1] Copyright Disney, of course. Fortunately brains will never be TCPA compliant, or they would restrict this quote too.
Would it be possible to rip the chip itself out of a TPM compliant system, and fake a 'boot' within the emulator well enough to fool the chip into thinking it was a real boot? The emulator would need a hardware component to interface with the chip....?
Cannot build the hardware? Nonsense, other replies said as much. But, could you distribute the signed binary, without the key? Wouldn't that be a 'further restriction'?
It would also stop me from building my own MythTV HD box and doing simple timeshifting. Rebut that.
Or the ability to "' display any media or even web pages because of DRM'" So much for Firefox and xine.
The only way that this will not be a huge problem is if open source reaches critical mass and the media companies can (and some DO) make more money off the open source stuff than they can off of the DRM'ed stuff. What TC has the ability to do is to make open source irrelevant to anyone who wants to communicate with the world in any electronic way.
Your 'just turn the feature off' is idiotic, because it is not possible. Sure you can turn it off, and then the program stops doing what it is supposed to do - that is the whole point of TC in this application!
"the media server will know. Perhaps some windows applications will be written to not function in this regard as well "
And the DRM^h^h^h 'media' server will refuse to give the decryption keys to any program not written that way. And without those keys there will be (if they want) nothing that works. You won't be able to open your M$ office files, 'cause they are encrypted. You won't be able to access your financial data, either online, or in your own files. No music, no movies, no posting to /., no encrypting your own email with your own pgp key, no IP address from the ISP, (and no routing without it!) I could probably come up with more, but why? Isn't that bad enough?
Your whole argument for on #2 is 'they have proven themselves technically incompetent so far...' True enough. But people occasionally learn from their mistakes, specially when there is a huge wad of cash as incentive. Do I want to bet on their continued incompetence? NO!!
I agree with the EFF on this. If I can control the remote attestation part, TC is a great idea, it puts me even more in control of my computer. If not, I potentially lose all control. If I don't control it, do I really own it?
Not quite. IP addresses will only give you slashdot.org. URL's can tell which stories you went to/posted to.
When the original king james version translators did their thing, they took care to note which parts were literal translations of the greek, and which parts were put in by them to make it proper english. They did this with itallics Anything in itallics is a word inserted by the translators. Also, for the new testament, there in no punctuation of any sort in the original greek. All letters are capitalized, and not as much as spaces between the words, Like this: THENEWTESTAMENTWASWRITTENWITHCAPSLOCKONANDABUSTESS PACEBAR
So let's look at the verse again. Notice how your interpretation of the verse depends on that first 'is' being there. Also notice how it is in itallics. Take it out and reread the verse. Now it only says that those parts of scripture that are given by inspiration of god are profitable, etc. It allows for some scripture to not be given by god, and says nothing about the profitablity etc. of those scriptures.
There are many passages in the Bible that have greatly changed meanings when you move a comma around, or put in those itallic words etc. Other than looking at context or other passages, we no longer have the abillity to determine the correct meaning of these passages. Please try to understand the book that you are using, failure to do so will (as possibly in this example) lead to incorrect assumptions.
I think that you have hit on the reason that religion has lasted so long, and why it is still around for the most part. It seems to work.
It may not be the installer. Windows ME did not like ~ in filenames. You couldn't transfer any file with that in the name over a windows share. You would get a 'file not found' error. Stupid.
471 million tons CO2 from coal fired electric plants, plus another 61 million tons fron natural gas and oil fired electric plants - 532 million tons CO2 for electricity.
From the link "Motor gasoline accounts for nearly two-thirds of transportation sector energy consumption." 2/3 of 473 million tons is about 315 million tons. (assumption that CO2 ~ energy, may not be true)
If you change the gg98rpt part of the link to gg99rpt, or gg02rpt etc, you can get figures as recent as 2002. A quick look shows that electric power has increased it's precentage of our CO2 output verses transportation since '97.
100% humidity does not mean that the air is 100% water vapor. It means that at that temprature, the air cannot hold any more water. See Wikipedia's info. 100% humidity at room temp, at sea level, is less than 3% water.
You are right that temperature difference is the primary driver of the weather engine, but violent weather always involves a lot of moist air. Most of the energy comes from the water vapor condencing out. That is why hurricanes cause a lot of rain!. From Wikipedia "Direct causes of weather are temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, cloud cover, wind speed, and elevation." I would add, 'in that order'.
" Air pressure is the pressure caused by the weight of air above any area in the Earth's atmosphere." 200 feet of water weights the same, whether as vapor or as liquid. ~ 33 feet of water causes 1 atmosphere of pressure. 200 feet of ocean, adjust for only 70% of earth surface is ocean ~=160 feet. 160/33 ~= 5 atmospheres of additional pressure.
"If the whole earth gets warmer, the difference of temperature in the levels of the atmosphere gets less and the weather engine runs more gently." No. If the heating is uniform, the difference will not change. If anything it will increase because the sun does not heat the air directly. It heats the ground/ocean, which then heats up the air - the air at the bottom, not the air at the top.
All of the tectonic plates rose the same? Hardly. They neither moved the same distance nor at the same time. Nor would it be required to explain all current effects. Not all contenental shelves were once dry, and there are many places that were under water that are not now. The only time that there was uniform up or down ocean level change that I am aware of was during the ice ages, when a lot of the water was in glaciers, and not the ocean.