If uber-expensive recording equipment are really mandatory to record a commercial music release, why does the RIAA give a hoot about your average lousy mp3 rip?
Before 9/11 I flew 3 to 5 times a year. After 9/11, I resolved never to fly again until each aircraft has at least two uniformed, heavily armed policemen. Of course that means I don't fly anymore, but I feel safer on the ground anyway.
Valid IDs are meaningless when it comes to J. Random Nutcase going nuts on a flight.
What I'm thinking is that the moment the innocent image, A, is frozen and unchangeable, the hash is now a fixed target to be matched by the changing of the malicious image B. According to my understanding, its still too difficult to match the two hashes when one is fixed.
It looks like this Meng fellow started this SPF thing and gladly hooked up with Microsoft and had no interest in providing an open non-encumbered standard. A wish for open non-encumbered standards is often not simply some irrational manifestation of Microsoft hatred, but rather a desire to let different systems, including free software systems, interact.
From the article, it looks like you have to be able to tweak both images. If you're only required to tweak one image, that implies that you know which hash to target, and then that would be a preimage attack which is still infeasable (at this time).
You've really outlined some typical thinking that goes on when designing a piece of software, each step was looking at downsides of design decisions, contiguous memory -> array of lines -> finally to noncontiguous chunks of text, and each step of the way was a solution to a drawback of the previous attempt at solution.
I wonder how many programmers have run this scenario in their mind when doing some hypothetical designing of a hypothetical editor. Unfortunately, I bet its still patentable.
I'd imagine the better script kiddies could find 512 zombies out there on the net. They may have to lower cpu a bit to make the owner less suspicious, but who hasn't run windows (or even kde), cussed the slowness, yet never investigated anything.
Heck, this is a good app for the next virus/trojan/worm if theres some value in faking hashes.
Would NVidia's business be just as good if they openned up their drivers? Would they retain every bit of their competitive edge? Apparently the video card market is all about competition and a few months lead can be pretty advantageous.
How beneficial is it to NVidia to give away all the source to their drivers?
I could possibly understand the limitted networking, maybe even the concurrent application limit, but lower resolution? Microsoft needs to remember that porn is _the_ killer app of the internet, and nobody will stand for lo-res porn.
Much better availability. The Windows kernel comes with so much baggage, I'm pretty well limitted with what I can do with it.
I can shoehorn a recent linux kernel into a 486 with 32mb of ram, and I'll get a decent amount of functionality from that box. I can make that kernel as big or small as I want. That kernel will support all kinds of modularity and security. The availability of that kernel shoehorned into a 486 with two network cards means that I can probably run a cherry install of Windows XP on my hot athlon box and get internet access without an instant pwning of the box, you see, the linux kernel has so many advantages, it even helps Windows users.
In theory, I guess windows XP on a low end pentium of some sort could do this, but if I had a low end pentium of some sort, I'd still rather have the 486 firewall and have that low end pentium do something else, like host some more hard drives or burn cd's while I have my athlon pig out on multimedia. Plus, I'm not big on putting XP on the net after a fresh install.
I didn't call that innovation. Irrelevent to my point, anyway. If MS owns a 'virtual land grab' patent, it's easy enough to fight by coming up with something else.
What it hurts is the independent software writer that can't afford to develop a patent portfolio to cross license with, not to mention open source software.
I disagree very much that "it's easy enough to fight by coming up with something else."
For example, Microsoft owns a patent for activating a program on a handheld device by holding a button down for several seconds
A patent for essentially timing a button press. This is not innovation, this is jumping on a virtual land grab offered by the patent office. I guess the next patent to expect will be for activating a program on a desktop device by pushing a button twice in a short time period.
Anything less than that is negligence, which may not be what you are suggesting, but pragmatism is akin to being practical. So is letting your boss get away with making bad decisions practical? What if that decision causes a few people to lose "these periodic paychecks"?
If a job losing decision is made, and not by me, most likely at my level I won't be the one to assign blame. I will certainly answer questions, but if my boss fucks up, it won't be up to me whether "he gets away with it."
Where I work, theres a department that does that, its called HR.
On the few occasions that I now do go over a bosses head, its simply to express concern that I believe hasn't been adequately addressed, and its still not a great thing, because the bosses boss now thinks I'm out of bounds and has new worries about my boss. The last time I did this the boss was scheduled to leave the company anyways and thats what I was subsequently informed (ie., wait it out please). His decision was nullified in a few months in any case.
And anyways, I try not to argue anymore, I actively debate issues, sure, but I'm a very pragmatic person now, and because of this, I'm able to persuade and influence much more than when I was a principled knowitall.
Or the business world. Most of the people in managerial positions don't know what thtey're doing, they got their by luck and kissing the right ass.
Your comment implies they know exactly what they're doing.
I've held a few peon IT positions, I've had different attitudes during them. My starting job, I was opinionated and high profile, and just got myself in a world of crap. I soon learned that the less you're heard from, the less unneeded attention comes your way. Now theres a danger that your job can get too cushy and you can goof off too much and get in trouble, but a steady application of self motivation can help you steer clear of trouble.
Instead of arguing about upper level decisions, "advise and persuade", and if ever a decision of yours proves it would have been better instead of the way management actually went, do not rub it in!. If a decision recommended by you is subsequently championed by someone else without acknowledgement of its origion, congratulate them on their creativity. I once walked in on my boss snoozing on his desk, I told him he should take it easier, he was wearing himself out. (Good boss tho, plus a new father so 3 am feedings were taking a toll.)
Its a wonderful thing, these periodic paychecks, and even better if you get to hack in an airconditioned environment to get them. Pragmatism goes a long way.
Woody Guthry used to include a copyright notice on songbooks he would mail to his fans:
This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of
Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will
be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it.
We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do.
Using fuses seems best suited for small runs where your design is pretty fixed and you don't want to foot the bill for a custom chip mask. Like programmable logic arrays, etc...
So if conditions change with the environment these chips are in, they blow some fuses to respond. If conditions change back to where they were before the chip blew fuses, oh well. Some sort of nonviolate ram seems more in order for "adaptive" technology, heck regular PC cmos adapts handily to new hard disks for instance.
It is worth noting that it seems the real breakthrough is in the actual improvement in fuse technology (from the article):
"In the old days, people tried to do this by basically blowing the fuse up by coursing a certain amount of current in it and causing it to rupture. The problem with that mode of opening up a fuse is that there is no place for the debris to go. So it can redeposit on the fuse and cause a previously open fuse to act like it's closed," he said.
By avoiding the rupture, IBM claims to have perfected a technique to harnesses electromigration and uses it to program a fuse without damaging other parts of the chip.
Maybe its just the press release that slants this toward being "adaptive" technology.
I hate technology that blocks competition, because competition has a good chance of bringing me better deals, and lack of competition means the single sourced product can suck to the fullest extent that the market will allow, and that can be pretty darn bad.
This is a new idea (to me) - they could decide minimum selling prices for workstation-grade Linux and for server-grade OSS to provide a level playing field for commercial software. Then the money collected could be used for financing development of OSS via government grants.
I know I wouldn't like that. Right now linux is very useable for me, I don't have to do activation codes or any licensing whatsoever, I can have several different distros on each computer, everyone is free to put together slightly different distros, its an amazing scene, and what I see happening with "mandatory pricing" is all that neat stuff would disappear and I know that would suck for me personally.
Next, enforcement in general, you'd have to have government inventorying individuals pc's because since the source is so available, how would you pull a microsoft activation code type thing to stop piracy, etc, and now I've got the government mandating access to my pc and to me this would suck even worse.
Redhat is doing an ok business by selling linux with support, and businesses like a supported linux, and this still leaves other distros for home users like me. Additionally, I don't see microsoft hurting in the sales department. If their sales hurt in the future, that can only mean that they don't have anything to offer over what is already available, and government mandated pricing means that we'd be stuck paying for nothing new, and thats a further drain on the economy for the software users (although certainly a boon to producers).
I just don't see a downside with how things work now. Look at how microsoft is pressured to improve their products simply because linux is an available alternative.
On user interfaces, I believe the old Lotus corporation succeeded in stopping Borland's Quattro Pro products' exact emulation of Lotus 123's menus. I'm sure folks still need to be careful when borrowing UI designs.
Patents are such a complete mess right now I'm just basically not going to apply much thought here. Its a frustrating area right now, the US Patent office takes money and gives rubber stamps.
P.S. I just thought about this - what happens if a company wants to ruin their competitor who has single product - they start giving the software away for free (since they can still make some money on other products). Now the single-product company goes bust. Without OSS that would have been called dumping. Would that be legal with OSS?
What stops me from considering that this is "dumping" is the result, a company can block a competing piece of work because of some arbitrarily determined amount of money that should be charged. Dumping in the physical world is easy to determine because there is a cost per unit. With software, the cost of additional units is so low that its easy to simply write the cost off (download costs). The initial design and coding is the real cost and to call free software "dumping" means that one can no longer code outside of an actual job with paychecks, tax returns and business licenses. Scary thought there.
Slashdot Mirror
If uber-expensive recording equipment are really mandatory to record a commercial music release, why does the RIAA give a hoot about your average lousy mp3 rip?
"nobody would be better for that job".
Before 9/11 I flew 3 to 5 times a year. After 9/11, I resolved never to fly again until each aircraft has at least two uniformed, heavily armed policemen. Of course that means I don't fly anymore, but I feel safer on the ground anyway. Valid IDs are meaningless when it comes to J. Random Nutcase going nuts on a flight.
What I'm thinking is that the moment the innocent image, A, is frozen and unchangeable, the hash is now a fixed target to be matched by the changing of the malicious image B. According to my understanding, its still too difficult to match the two hashes when one is fixed.
It looks like this Meng fellow started this SPF thing and gladly hooked up with Microsoft and had no interest in providing an open non-encumbered standard. A wish for open non-encumbered standards is often not simply some irrational manifestation of Microsoft hatred, but rather a desire to let different systems, including free software systems, interact.
From the article, it looks like you have to be able to tweak both images. If you're only required to tweak one image, that implies that you know which hash to target, and then that would be a preimage attack which is still infeasable (at this time).
I wonder how many programmers have run this scenario in their mind when doing some hypothetical designing of a hypothetical editor. Unfortunately, I bet its still patentable.
Just like a programmer to ship untested code.
Heck, this is a good app for the next virus/trojan/worm if theres some value in faking hashes.
How beneficial is it to NVidia to give away all the source to their drivers?
I'm still not going to hose payroll's pc no matter how backed up it is, if theres a way I can avoid it. Down time is down time.
Like the payroll officer's desktop PC. That one is particularily critical.
I could possibly understand the limitted networking, maybe even the concurrent application limit, but lower resolution? Microsoft needs to remember that porn is _the_ killer app of the internet, and nobody will stand for lo-res porn.
I think gcc is LGPL.
I can shoehorn a recent linux kernel into a 486 with 32mb of ram, and I'll get a decent amount of functionality from that box. I can make that kernel as big or small as I want. That kernel will support all kinds of modularity and security. The availability of that kernel shoehorned into a 486 with two network cards means that I can probably run a cherry install of Windows XP on my hot athlon box and get internet access without an instant pwning of the box, you see, the linux kernel has so many advantages, it even helps Windows users.
In theory, I guess windows XP on a low end pentium of some sort could do this, but if I had a low end pentium of some sort, I'd still rather have the 486 firewall and have that low end pentium do something else, like host some more hard drives or burn cd's while I have my athlon pig out on multimedia. Plus, I'm not big on putting XP on the net after a fresh install.
What it hurts is the independent software writer that can't afford to develop a patent portfolio to cross license with, not to mention open source software.
I disagree very much that "it's easy enough to fight by coming up with something else."
For example, Microsoft owns a patent for activating a program on a handheld device by holding a button down for several seconds
A patent for essentially timing a button press. This is not innovation, this is jumping on a virtual land grab offered by the patent office. I guess the next patent to expect will be for activating a program on a desktop device by pushing a button twice in a short time period.
I'd have to say "Microsoft Bob" peaked pretty early.
Anything less than that is negligence, which may not be what you are suggesting, but pragmatism is akin to being practical. So is letting your boss get away with making bad decisions practical? What if that decision causes a few people to lose "these periodic paychecks"?
If a job losing decision is made, and not by me, most likely at my level I won't be the one to assign blame. I will certainly answer questions, but if my boss fucks up, it won't be up to me whether "he gets away with it."
Where I work, theres a department that does that, its called HR.
On the few occasions that I now do go over a bosses head, its simply to express concern that I believe hasn't been adequately addressed, and its still not a great thing, because the bosses boss now thinks I'm out of bounds and has new worries about my boss. The last time I did this the boss was scheduled to leave the company anyways and thats what I was subsequently informed (ie., wait it out please). His decision was nullified in a few months in any case.
And anyways, I try not to argue anymore, I actively debate issues, sure, but I'm a very pragmatic person now, and because of this, I'm able to persuade and influence much more than when I was a principled knowitall.
Your comment implies they know exactly what they're doing.
I've held a few peon IT positions, I've had different attitudes during them. My starting job, I was opinionated and high profile, and just got myself in a world of crap. I soon learned that the less you're heard from, the less unneeded attention comes your way. Now theres a danger that your job can get too cushy and you can goof off too much and get in trouble, but a steady application of self motivation can help you steer clear of trouble.
Instead of arguing about upper level decisions, "advise and persuade", and if ever a decision of yours proves it would have been better instead of the way management actually went, do not rub it in!. If a decision recommended by you is subsequently championed by someone else without acknowledgement of its origion, congratulate them on their creativity. I once walked in on my boss snoozing on his desk, I told him he should take it easier, he was wearing himself out. (Good boss tho, plus a new father so 3 am feedings were taking a toll.)
Its a wonderful thing, these periodic paychecks, and even better if you get to hack in an airconditioned environment to get them. Pragmatism goes a long way.
(from www.woodyguthrie.com)
I like to think that he'd approve of jibjabs outstanding version of one of his songs ;-)
Using fuses seems best suited for small runs where your design is pretty fixed and you don't want to foot the bill for a custom chip mask. Like programmable logic arrays, etc...
So if conditions change with the environment these chips are in, they blow some fuses to respond. If conditions change back to where they were before the chip blew fuses, oh well. Some sort of nonviolate ram seems more in order for "adaptive" technology, heck regular PC cmos adapts handily to new hard disks for instance.
It is worth noting that it seems the real breakthrough is in the actual improvement in fuse technology (from the article):
By avoiding the rupture, IBM claims to have perfected a technique to harnesses electromigration and uses it to program a fuse without damaging other parts of the chip.
Maybe its just the press release that slants this toward being "adaptive" technology.
Thats my 2 cents.
I know I wouldn't like that. Right now linux is very useable for me, I don't have to do activation codes or any licensing whatsoever, I can have several different distros on each computer, everyone is free to put together slightly different distros, its an amazing scene, and what I see happening with "mandatory pricing" is all that neat stuff would disappear and I know that would suck for me personally.
Next, enforcement in general, you'd have to have government inventorying individuals pc's because since the source is so available, how would you pull a microsoft activation code type thing to stop piracy, etc, and now I've got the government mandating access to my pc and to me this would suck even worse.
Redhat is doing an ok business by selling linux with support, and businesses like a supported linux, and this still leaves other distros for home users like me. Additionally, I don't see microsoft hurting in the sales department. If their sales hurt in the future, that can only mean that they don't have anything to offer over what is already available, and government mandated pricing means that we'd be stuck paying for nothing new, and thats a further drain on the economy for the software users (although certainly a boon to producers).
I just don't see a downside with how things work now. Look at how microsoft is pressured to improve their products simply because linux is an available alternative.
On user interfaces, I believe the old Lotus corporation succeeded in stopping Borland's Quattro Pro products' exact emulation of Lotus 123's menus. I'm sure folks still need to be careful when borrowing UI designs.
Patents are such a complete mess right now I'm just basically not going to apply much thought here. Its a frustrating area right now, the US Patent office takes money and gives rubber stamps.
P.S. I just thought about this - what happens if a company wants to ruin their competitor who has single product - they start giving the software away for free (since they can still make some money on other products). Now the single-product company goes bust. Without OSS that would have been called dumping. Would that be legal with OSS?
What stops me from considering that this is "dumping" is the result, a company can block a competing piece of work because of some arbitrarily determined amount of money that should be charged. Dumping in the physical world is easy to determine because there is a cost per unit. With software, the cost of additional units is so low that its easy to simply write the cost off (download costs). The initial design and coding is the real cost and to call free software "dumping" means that one can no longer code outside of an actual job with paychecks, tax returns and business licenses. Scary thought there.