The Constitution never intended to allow the federal government to regulate commerce (except in true imports and exports). The federal government was given the power to regulate the states -- to prevent them from tariffs, embargoing or taxing imports and exports between states. The interstate commerce clause is very clear when you review what the framers debated -- they wanted freedom in trade within the Republic.
I've seen you propose this theory several times. But it doesn't make sense. If all the framers wanted to do was control interstate taxes, tariffs and embargos, they already explicity gave that power to the Federal government outside of the Comerce Clause:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts
or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely
necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of
all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall
be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws
shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
US Constitution, Article I Section 10
Embargos would be more covered under the part where states are not allowed to engage in war. (later in Article I Section 10).
The Framers would not have needed a seperate clause to cover interstate inport/export taxes, since that was already covered.
No, The Commerce Clause must have a different more expansive purpose.
No, the point to this sub thread is whether a hospital had a use for multimedia on thier computers.
No, it's not; it's wether lack of multimedia on a certain computer is going to cause a life or death situation.
The start of this subthread, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180945&cid=149 70992, you asked "What on earth would a hospital be doing have movie or audio software installed on their computers? To be more clear, why would they have need to play DRM'ed material?"
You didn't say "certain computers". You specified computers belonging to the hospital.
So I gave you an answer. Expanded: A Hospital might want to use some of its computers to play traning videos.
In addition not everything in a hospital is a life or death crisis. There are plenty of shades of grey between the white of Life and the black of Death. And its perfectly legitimate to be concerned about minimizing risks that are not life or death in and of themselves. Not only for improvnments own sake, but because even minor problems can add to a major problem when it occurs. Consider if you will something like a disaster response. If the computer of some life support equipment goes down, and its possible that a general purpose computer could be pressed into duty as an emergency replacement given no other option. No matter how much backup replacements they planned for, shit happens, and there may come a time one has to come up with fixes for unplanned disaster. DRM crap rootkitted into the general purpose machine could make the difference between success or failure. Better to just not to cripple stuff in the first place.
PS: I asked you to stop with the strawmen. You are the only one who proposing training videos might be run while real procedures are in progress. The fact that traning can affect real performance does not mean that training occurs during real performance. Get your mind out of the cartoons.
The point is that someone who hasn't already seen the training video shouldn't be in the operating room
No, the point to this sub thread is whether a hospital had a use for multimedia on thier computers. And the ability to show training videos is an example that they do.
Basically hat DRM does is 'break' something that the hardware was designed to be able to do, because the DRM installer feels the owner shouldn't be able to do something under the theory that they are protecting IP. Its a purposeful impediment. And in a situation where education is involved, impediments increase the risk that education will not happen.
Where the education is involved with safety, impedements decrease safety.
You really think medical personel are somehow better than the rest of humanity and are always always fully trained and up to date in their knowledge. Example: Recently my son had a bout with diarrhea. The nurse at our pedeatric office recommended a diet known as BRAT (banana rice applesauce toast). Yet there is much reference out on the web that BRAT is outdated. e.g. http://ms.about.com/od/nutrition/a/BRAT.htm talks about an alternate called CRAM. Is her training out of date? Quite possibly. Is the stereotype of doctors with god complexes totally without basis?
Don't give me your Dr. Nick type strawmen. Life is not a Simpson's cartoon. Education is a continuing process. Even a real heart surgeon needs to keep up to date.
I'd hate to think that, in a life or death situation, somebody would die because the doctor couldn't watch a training video.
Wrong tense to highlight the risk. Let me correct it for you
I'd hate to think that, in a life or death situation, somebody would die because the doctor had not watched a training video (because DRM requirments made it difficult).
At lets not forget hospitals have personel other than doctors that can need training.
What on earth would a hospital be doing have movie or audio software installed on their computers? To be more clear, why would they have need to play DRM'ed material
That's just what I was thinking too. IHBT/HAND. Congrats on beating me to the announcement.
Of course G.G. really let the mask slip when he started babbling about logic and repeated assertions, when that's all he had only done, and without an supporting data.
"Ubermensch" doesn't translate as "superman". It doesn't.
Yawn. So your hypothesis is that its illegitimate to use the prefix 'super' as a translation for the german prefix "uber"? Or perhaps your gripe is that Mensch could be translated as "Humans". Too bad the word "man" can mean
an individual human.
overman, superman, overhuman, superhuman. All basically the same concept, so are legitimate German-English translations. Coined in 1903, Shaw's translation is the one with the most precedent.
Personally, I think you should move on to your next bit of schtick and tell us that JFK proclaimed he was a jelly doughnut.
Just a bit of fun at the expense of a person who doesn't realize that the common English prefix "super" is derived from the latin word "super", meaning "over".:)
I would agree if "Übermensch" translated as "superman" but it doesn't.
Unfortunately, George Bernad Shaw disagrees with you, and he set the standard for the
english translation of Nietzsche's term in his play Man and Superman
THE STATUE: And who the deuce is the Superman?
THE DEVIL: Oh, the latest fashion among the Life Force fanatics. Did
you not meet in Heaven, among the new arrivals, that German Polish
madman? what was his name? Nietzsche?
The Romans proved this, when the city state armies (farmers and the like) were out farming, the Roman army was constantly training. Thus Romes enemies fell quickly.
You know, Arminius , might disagee with you there, following his interaction with Varus in the Teutoburg Forest...
But the Founding Fathers were probably looking at a much more recent example in history when they developed their enthusiasm for militia.
Cromwells's New Model Army was (at its core) originally formed out of regional militia, and it defeated the Royal Army in the first English Civil War.
Since they had had personal experience of how a standing army could oppress a population, they were now keen on the idea of having another one around. But the New Model Army showed that an effective fighting force could be developed from militia in short order.
Its sort of ironic, because the New Model Army developed into the Redcoats that the Founding Fathers had been oppessed by and had just fought the war with.
Is this story just belated hype for the movie Firewall starring Harrison Ford?
Sure its not well timed if that what it supposed to be. But it has the the same elements as the movie. Employee threatened to help criminals breach his companies security. The headline even contains the name of the movie. Maybe it was submitted weeks ago, but was kept in the slush pile until needed as filler now.
At least if it was hype it would be better than if if a tech writer had to pull his story ideas from Hollywood. Or at least more understandable.
Trusted computing is honestly, in my opinion, the best solution. The problem isn't the nature of hardware-level controls over the software; the problem is who controls those controls. They should be open and owned by the user, and should not restrict vendors or enable any secret DRM.
But the 'problem' with that is that if the owner can sign his own freshly compiled software as trusted, how can one be sure that malware won't learn the key too. Sure you have trusted executables, but there are often other things than binaries that can execute on a system.
For example, say someone finds a way to sneak a postscript picture into being executed by ghostscript (thats not running in -dSAFER mode). True postscript is not just a graphics description format. It is an actual interpreted programming language. The postscript program could use its ability to write files to create a shell or perl script that wraps the signing app. Next time the signing app is used, the wrapper gets run. Malware could then get signed as well as the intended code.
The only way to fully avoid stuff like that is to not allow a user to sign his own code on the target machine. And I am afraid there are plenty of insititutions out there willing to 'help' us with that by simply not giving us the keys to the machines they sell us.
TFA seems to propose a model where the host OS is running a Root kit that runs a VM that runs a copy of the host OS that the user works within, which hides the root kit.
But in that model, the host OS is still running.
It mighr be possible to detect a rootkit by putting a honeypot of some sort in the true kernel. The when the root kit tried to do something, like say change the firewall, the true kernel could detect that and quarentine itself.
Of course a root kit running with ring-zero permissions would try to lobotomize that code, so the honeypot itself can't be too easy to find and alter. You'd probably need other kernel level tripwire type code to look for lobotomization.
Maybe a card with boot time code that the OS could call to verify itself. Not pure trusted computing as any user could add such a card (assuming a free slot)
Can you think of a way to win against rootkits without TCPA?
A rootkit can really only win if its undetectable. If you are playing a game of who has control of ring-zero resources, the victim, if running in a VM should be able to do various things that would cause an exception when it tried to do ring-0 only hardware accesses. If the exceptions are not what is expected, then the victim would be able to detect that its not in true control.
It might be possible to make a VM that tried to emulate ring-0 hardware access in user mode. Been a while since I looked at that area of cpu's. But if so, I'd expect it to be much more complex than a normal VM.
But suppose it is possible to test for true ring-0 hardware access. Then the root-kit has to fall back to classical root-kit techniques. It has to subvert the detection software. That task can be made difficult by classic defenses, like trip-wire, or running software from read-only sources, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen you propose this theory several times. But it doesn't make sense. If all the framers wanted to do was control interstate taxes, tariffs and embargos, they already explicity gave that power to the Federal government outside of the Comerce Clause:
Embargos would be more covered under the part where states are not allowed to engage in war. (later in Article I Section 10).
The Framers would not have needed a seperate clause to cover interstate inport/export taxes, since that was already covered.
No, The Commerce Clause must have a different more expansive purpose.
Sono il robot dello spingitoio
Spingere è la risposta
Spingerò il grandma all'esterno nella neve
Pak chooie unf
No, it's not; it's wether lack of multimedia on a certain computer is going to cause a life or death situation.
The start of this subthread, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=180945&cid=149 70992, you asked "What on earth would a hospital be doing have movie or audio software installed on their computers? To be more clear, why would they have need to play DRM'ed material?"
You didn't say "certain computers". You specified computers belonging to the hospital. So I gave you an answer. Expanded: A Hospital might want to use some of its computers to play traning videos.
In addition not everything in a hospital is a life or death crisis. There are plenty of shades of grey between the white of Life and the black of Death. And its perfectly legitimate to be concerned about minimizing risks that are not life or death in and of themselves. Not only for improvnments own sake, but because even minor problems can add to a major problem when it occurs. Consider if you will something like a disaster response. If the computer of some life support equipment goes down, and its possible that a general purpose computer could be pressed into duty as an emergency replacement given no other option. No matter how much backup replacements they planned for, shit happens, and there may come a time one has to come up with fixes for unplanned disaster. DRM crap rootkitted into the general purpose machine could make the difference between success or failure. Better to just not to cripple stuff in the first place.
PS: I asked you to stop with the strawmen. You are the only one who proposing training videos might be run while real procedures are in progress. The fact that traning can affect real performance does not mean that training occurs during real performance. Get your mind out of the cartoons.
No, the point to this sub thread is whether a hospital had a use for multimedia on thier computers. And the ability to show training videos is an example that they do.
Basically hat DRM does is 'break' something that the hardware was designed to be able to do, because the DRM installer feels the owner shouldn't be able to do something under the theory that they are protecting IP. Its a purposeful impediment. And in a situation where education is involved, impediments increase the risk that education will not happen. Where the education is involved with safety, impedements decrease safety.
You really think medical personel are somehow better than the rest of humanity and are always always fully trained and up to date in their knowledge. Example: Recently my son had a bout with diarrhea. The nurse at our pedeatric office recommended a diet known as BRAT (banana rice applesauce toast). Yet there is much reference out on the web that BRAT is outdated. e.g. http://ms.about.com/od/nutrition/a/BRAT.htm talks about an alternate called CRAM. Is her training out of date? Quite possibly. Is the stereotype of doctors with god complexes totally without basis?
Don't give me your Dr. Nick type strawmen. Life is not a Simpson's cartoon. Education is a continuing process. Even a real heart surgeon needs to keep up to date.
Wrong tense to highlight the risk. Let me correct it for you
At lets not forget hospitals have personel other than doctors that can need training.
Training Videos
pcollins$ su su sudio
That's just what I was thinking too. IHBT/HAND. Congrats on beating me to the announcement.
Of course G.G. really let the mask slip when he started babbling about logic and repeated assertions, when that's all he had only done, and without an supporting data.
Not exactly subtle. But hey what can a troll do.
Ich bin nicht ein Berliner
Yawn. So your hypothesis is that its illegitimate to use the prefix 'super' as a translation for the german prefix "uber"? Or perhaps your gripe is that Mensch could be translated as "Humans". Too bad the word "man" can mean an individual human.
overman, superman, overhuman, superhuman. All basically the same concept, so are legitimate German-English translations. Coined in 1903, Shaw's translation is the one with the most precedent.
Personally, I think you should move on to your next bit of schtick and tell us that JFK proclaimed he was a jelly doughnut.
Just a bit of fun at the expense of a person who doesn't realize that the common English prefix "super" is derived from the latin word "super", meaning "over".
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/super-
Unfortunately, George Bernad Shaw disagrees with you, and he set the standard for the english translation of Nietzsche's term in his play Man and Superman
THE STATUE: And who the deuce is the Superman?
THE DEVIL: Oh, the latest fashion among the Life Force fanatics. Did
you not meet in Heaven, among the new arrivals, that German Polish
madman? what was his name? Nietzsche?
Act III. Shaw, Bernard. 1903. Man and Superman
No! Its clearly a derived work coming from Nietzsche's concept of "Übermensch" :)
Of course as this filtering technique becomes more widespread, the percentage of sites featuring People of Orionian Descent should go up.
It is more probable that it would filter out pages with 'porn' in the title
You know, Arminius , might disagee with you there, following his interaction with Varus in the Teutoburg Forest...
But the Founding Fathers were probably looking at a much more recent example in history when they developed their enthusiasm for militia.
Cromwells's New Model Army was (at its core) originally formed out of regional militia, and it defeated the Royal Army in the first English Civil War.
Since they had had personal experience of how a standing army could oppress a population, they were now keen on the idea of having another one around. But the New Model Army showed that an effective fighting force could be developed from militia in short order.
Its sort of ironic, because the New Model Army developed into the Redcoats that the Founding Fathers had been oppessed by and had just fought the war with.
HELP I am being held prisoner in a Chinese BLOG server room
Is this story just belated hype for the movie Firewall starring Harrison Ford?
Sure its not well timed if that what it supposed to be. But it has the the same elements as the movie. Employee threatened to help criminals breach his companies security. The headline even contains the name of the movie. Maybe it was submitted weeks ago, but was kept in the slush pile until needed as filler now.
At least if it was hype it would be better than if if a tech writer had to pull his story ideas from Hollywood. Or at least more understandable.
A pump is one.
But the 'problem' with that is that if the owner can sign his own freshly compiled software as trusted, how can one be sure that malware won't learn the key too. Sure you have trusted executables, but there are often other things than binaries that can execute on a system.
For example, say someone finds a way to sneak a postscript picture into being executed by ghostscript (thats not running in -dSAFER mode). True postscript is not just a graphics description format. It is an actual interpreted programming language. The postscript program could use its ability to write files to create a shell or perl script that wraps the signing app. Next time the signing app is used, the wrapper gets run. Malware could then get signed as well as the intended code.
The only way to fully avoid stuff like that is to not allow a user to sign his own code on the target machine. And I am afraid there are plenty of insititutions out there willing to 'help' us with that by simply not giving us the keys to the machines they sell us.
TFA seems to propose a model where the host OS is running a Root kit that runs a VM that runs a copy of the host OS that the user works within, which hides the root kit.
But in that model, the host OS is still running.
It mighr be possible to detect a rootkit by putting a honeypot of some sort in the true kernel. The when the root kit tried to do something, like say change the firewall, the true kernel could detect that and quarentine itself.
Of course a root kit running with ring-zero permissions would try to lobotomize that code, so the honeypot itself can't be too easy to find and alter. You'd probably need other kernel level tripwire type code to look for lobotomization.
Maybe a card with boot time code that the OS could call to verify itself. Not pure trusted computing as any user could add such a card (assuming a free slot)
A rootkit can really only win if its undetectable. If you are playing a game of who has control of ring-zero resources, the victim, if running in a VM should be able to do various things that would cause an exception when it tried to do ring-0 only hardware accesses. If the exceptions are not what is expected, then the victim would be able to detect that its not in true control.
It might be possible to make a VM that tried to emulate ring-0 hardware access in user mode. Been a while since I looked at that area of cpu's. But if so, I'd expect it to be much more complex than a normal VM.
But suppose it is possible to test for true ring-0 hardware access. Then the root-kit has to fall back to classical root-kit techniques. It has to subvert the detection software. That task can be made difficult by classic defenses, like trip-wire, or running software from read-only sources, etc.
How are we supposed to tell the good guys from the bad guys in the movies and on TV?
You can read spectrums as patterns of light absorbtion bands as well as light emission bands
No, arguments do not stand on their own when some important context is left out.
Its not that "Ad Hominem" has been thrown, but that "Cui Bono" has.
All for using "../" in a URL...
Good thing he didn't accidently leave off the end of a URL and get
Error: Directory Listing Denied. This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed.
Explictly forbidden access! They'd throw the book at him!