Because it's their site and they are in no need to follow their own rules.
Where does an 800lb gorilla sit?
a) Anywhere he damn well wants. b) Somewhere clear of other smaller animals
You appear to subscribe to the first train of thought.
Reading Gulliver's Travels might give you some pause. In short, Gulliver arrived in the land of Lilliputia to find that all the inhabitants were mere inches tall. He was the 800lb gorilla.
Until one day he lay down to sleep and woke to find himself tied to the ground and immbolized by hundreds of threads with hundreds of angry Lilliputians standing on him. Gulliver was lucky to make it out alive.
"We want to make sure our ATMs are integrated with every other channel so when I do a deposit in a [branch] I want to be able to go to [an] ATM immediately and see that deposit"
That is a misquote, the reporter, as is so typical with the press, misunderstood and then rewrote his misunderstanding for "clarity."
What he really said is:
"We want to make sure our ATMs are integrated with every other IRC channel so when I command my army of zombie robot ATMs, I can go to my target's ATM immediately and see the money drain from his account.
"We have previously tested this technology in the field with our automated voting machines and it worked very well, succesfully draining over 10% of the votes cast."
Why don't they require something useful, like a boob-cast flag? Then I could set my DVR to only record shows with the BCF set to 'TRUE'.
They already did, it is called the v-chip -- almost all tv's manufactured since 2000 have a v-chip, almost all programming contains v-chip readable flags. The v-chip flag isn't applied to news or live sports, so you would not have automatically grabbed Janet's teat, but otherwise just about every broadcast program is flagged.
But of course, having a technical solution to this "indecency" problem is no solution at all, the real goal of the people behind the "decency" brouhaha is to control the content of the airwaves. The v-chip gives control to the owner of the TV, not the owners of the tv broadcasters. So, we'll be sure to pass more laws restricting contaact and pretend that we are really legislating decency and morality.
they are so concerned about maintaining the security of their data that they gave it (in a very non-descript way mind you) to a group of people outside of their organization who have a history of struggling with integrity.
Wait, are you talking about the baggage handlers or the Managemenet of BofA?
So far, EVD has been a flop. I tend to agree with you that a lot of China's moves like this are about abusive patent regimes, but I'm no longer so hopeful about them making much of a difference.
MBNA, Citi and Discover all use the same platform, it is provided by Orbiscom. I think there are probably some other banks too, those are just the big ones I know of. Oddly enough American Express used to have a similar program and cancelled it.
I've been using the MBNA version for many years and hundreds of transaction, and have not had a single fraudulent charge since I started. If they would come up with a version that let me use it at brick & mortar stores, with real plastic, I would be ecstatic.
You are reading way too much into his use of the term inefficient. It is clearly a technical distinction, not a content distinction. Niche indices are clearly much more efficient at searching their database than google is at searching its database. No more, no less.
I think it's pretty clear that this guy doesn't understand how to use search engines properly and doesn't have the patience to learn.
I think you've never used a good search engine. So far, by their nature, they are mostly limited to specific niches. But he is absolutely right when he says that google is inefficient. Scaling the functionality of the niche search tools to something as broad as the entire net or even just the "blogosphere" is damn hard, but librarians are on the cutting edge of that research. Google may be the best tool at what it does today, but that doesn't mean it is even close to the best possible tool.
Comparing google to a tool like lexis/nexis is like comparing a bicycle a formula 1 race car. The bicycle can go pretty much anywhere but it is going to take a heck of a long time and you'll be pretty sore by the time you get there. The formula 1 car isn't much good off the track, but on track it's orders of magnitude more powerful than any bicycle.
What google has taught us is that advertising can support freely copy-able content if done right.
Huh? What are you talking about? Google is a content aggregator, not a content creator. All they have shown is that advertising can support fairly complicated and high-volume, AUTOMATED aggregation.
The major difference is that while the band may not "see" anything in the short term, every sale chips away at their debt
That ain't going to happen when your album is out of print because you are one of those 9 out of 10 bands that were not popular enough.
and if the album does happen to go platinum (or better), they will start to to receive royalties.
You are talking about a small subset of that 1 out of 10 that do get to record a second album. Typically when your first couple of albums go platinum, you barely see a dime either. It's only when you renegotiate your countract that you can have a hope of seeing any substantial income for future albums, never mind the previous ones.
You really are quite naive about the way the American music industry works.
You mean this "little shop" that makes money off other people's works without paying those other people? (Note - the performers of the music you download do not get any money from your "purchase". The songwriters get a very small amount, but that's all. Those who perform it get nothing.).
And how exactly is this substantially different from the American music industry? The music industry where more than 9 out of 10 bands that sign recording contracts end up in debt to their own recording company, without any ownership of the music they've recorded and with no chance of recording a second album?
I'm guessing that, for them to bite - the big production houses would need to know that they could make more money using this model than the current broadcast > DVD > Syndication one.
Remember that the proposed business model does not exist in a vacuum. The current model is endangered by both unauthorized internet distribution and tivo-enabled commercial skipping. Thus, while the current model may end up being sustainable in the long run, it won't be at levels anywhere near as profitable as it is today.
Hollywood is notoroious for trying to put the genie back into the bottle instead of asking it for three wishes, so who knows what it will take to convince them.
it seems like it would still require the establishment of some sort of "network" to really get the word out worldwide.
Agreed, advertising gets both harder and easier. You'll need some kind of central location for people to find out about new productions. Plus, you either need to be really convincing to persuade people to put their money up (although part of the idea is that the money is refunded if the show is not produced) or give away a couple of episodes to hook people - either way costs money and is a risk.
But, on the other side, once established with a few shows bought and paid for, all the released episodes serve as free advertising for the next episode's production costs.
I believe thats why being able to legally download a tv-show for a $1 an episode won't kill the dvd industry because a video clip on your computer, is a whole lot different to having a brand spanking new dvd in your hand to watch in your personal home theatre with 5.1 sound and amazing picture quality.
That's the entertainment equivalent of Bill Gates apocryphal, "640K should be more than enough for everybody."
Today anyone can download MPEG4(XviD) AVI's of current shows like Lost, 24, Joan of Arcadia, Smallville, Enterprise, Veronica Mars, Joey, Carnivale, etc that are higher resolution than DVD and with multi-channel audio - they have been sourced from the HDTV broadcasts and transcoded to MPEG4. Somet maintain the original HDTV resolution, some have been stepped down to something like 960x576p which is still better than DVD. These AVI files are also 2-4 times smaller than the equivalent MPEG2 files for standard DVD.
There are already multi-function stand-alone DVD players that can play DVDs of these high resolution AVI files and their number will only increase as the year progresses.
So, while for the majority of people today downloads don't directly compete with TV on DVD releases, it is only a matter of time, probably a rather short time, until they do.
Given that, let's take that $1 and skip the network middlemen. Don't give it to NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX/ETC with all their overhead. Give it directly to the production house. Follow along with me here:
The average half-hour sitcom costs $2M per episode to produce. The average hour-long drama costs about $4M per episode. These numbers are probably on the high side.
So an hour-long show would break even if it had an audience of 4 million who were willing to put up $1 each. If the paying audience was 5 million, that's a 25% profit. If the audience is willing to pay the money for each episode far enough ahead of time (say a "season pass" of $25 up front) that means the profit could be locked in before production even starts.
That lock-in is a HUGE risk reduction - most shows today are money losers until they make it into syndication, which requires about 4 seasons worth of shows. Yet more than 80% of shows are cancelled before their 4th season. Thus making a profit up front is BIG deal for the tv production industry.
So what should this hypothetical paying audience expect in return for this guaranteed profit they are handing the production company? How about, ownership of the results? A typical work-for-hire situation where the "employer" is the public at large. In other words, the production company gets paid with a nice return on their investment and ownership of the result passes immediately into the public domain upon payment.
Then anyone could share copies of the show with anyone else and not have to worry about "stealing from the artists" or being persecuted for commiting copyright infringement. The creators get paid and the audience gets the content, which they can burn to DVD themselves, or just delete off their hard disk once they are done with it knowing that somewhere out on the net there is an archive of the show if they need a copy again.
Since the end result is in the public domain, the local broadcasters could still broadcast it with their own commercials for the audience that isn't motivated enough to download it. Which means that local tv stations would have an interest in footing part of the bill themselves, kind of like syndication fees, the end result being that you don't need all 5 million people to still hit that $5M per episode mark - just 100 local stations across the world, each putting in $10k per episode would cut the paying audience number down to 4 million.
A lot of these numbers are pessimistic - for example, in its first year, Star Trek the Next Generation was carried in syndication on over 200 stations. In its first syndication run (i.e. second broadcast), Cheers was on 450 stations at an average of $3.6K per station per episod
With any luck, these hydrogen stations will mark the beginning of the end for Islamic tyranny from the Middle East. For too long, we have essentially financed terrorist operations by paying money for gasoline. They money goes to, for example, Saudi Arabia. The Arabs then secretly funnel a bit of that money to anti-American groups in the Middle East.
How odd. You see, my hope for hydrogen, and really any alternative fuel is that it will be the end of tyranny in the middle east. For too long we have essentially financed tyrants and dictatorships by paying money for gasoline. The money goes to, for example, Saudi Arabia and the royal family uses it to maintain their absolute rule over the country, they openly give money to radical religious groups who distract the population from their country's own internal problems and focus them external issues like America and Israel.
We end up financing the dictators and preventing the natural social progression to democracy.
Look around- how many autistic people do you see working in computers? I see none where I work. Unless you count me- my mother insists I have Aspbergers
You should know then that Aspbergers is quite common in this industry. Maybe you just don't know how to recognize it, but all the stereotypes of geeks being socially inept have Aspbergers at their root. That's not to say that all geeks are high-functioning autistics. But, it is easier to mask in environments where their logical/reasoning/technical skills are valued over skills at socialization. Maybe you just need to look closer at the people around you.
From your description of her as, "busy being a teenage girl" it sounds like she is in the high-functioning end of the autistic spectrum, because the people in the middle to lower range are barely able to even BE a teenager in a way that society recognizes and avoiding the stigma of geekiness just isn't even a comprehenisble concept to them.
It is easy to say from the other side of the internet, but one of the best things anyone can do for her is to get her as much positive exposure to a wide range of "autistic-excelling" skills so that pattern-matching ability which makes her good at jigsaw puzzles will get the chance to focus on a more (financially) rewarding area. You never know what oddball skill might "click" with her, whatever it is, chances are it won't be what society considers a traditional job so you have to keep open to as broad a range as possible.
FWIW, I am speaking from experience here, one of my closest relatives has asperbergers. Early on he focused on computers and did the rounds as sysadmin/programmer and he was somewhat better than average at it. But what he found is that he is really good at talking about and explaining the processes and logic behind all that stuff - he's got really low communication skills otherwise, zero socialization ability, zero non-verbal communication ability, hardly any empathy, etc. But if you ask him about the way a complex system works he can explain it and he can explain it in a way that regular "non-savant" type people can follow.
He's been able to leverage that ability to "talk about work" into a very high paying career, serving as "resident guru" for companies doing software development. He doesn't do any real work, he just helps the regular developers understand how best to do their work. At first glance, it's not your typcial aspergbers-friendly kind of job because of all the people-interaction. But from his perspective it is a perfect match because it is all technical discourse about stuff he is really focused on with very little non-verbal/emotional content.
It's probably something like talking about jigsaw puzzles with your sister, she could probably talk about them all day and go into the most exruciating detail about them. Just nobody really wants to know about jigsaw puzzles, but knowing how complex hardware and software systems work is a very valuable skill in today's market.
What if the ROM's checksum must be signed by someone that the TPM itself trusts? (i.e. the TPM will only trust a ROM, whose checksum is signed by, let's suppose, Dell or Pheonix.)
That's not a problem because the emulator would be feeding the TPM chip the real ROM. Just like we would be feeding it the real bootloader and the real OS. Remember it is the CPU that executes the code, not the TPM. The CPU that we have absolute control over in an emulation environment.
Nevermind that the TPM is not in the right hardware mode to verify trust of the ROM right now.
That's a reasonable defense. But how strong is it really? What if we can glitch the TPM into "rebooting" without disturbing the rest of the system? Perhaps through software or perhaps through a careful physical hack, like shorting the chip's reset pin.
Consider: don't you think that the "trusted" computing forces and their minions have thought of this? "Oh, duh! We were too stoopid to think of emulation. Dang!"
Either you've said that twice now or there was someone else with the same opinion. Either way, my answer to that is BULLSHIT! If I wanted to believe in the designers' infallibility, I would never have asked the question in the first place. It's the suits in the copyright cartel who buy that shit and the geeks on the net who prove them wrong.
The motherboard must first examine the bootloader to see that it trusts it.
Exactly what does that mean? The BIOS on the motherboard? Why can't we emulate the "the motherboard," BIOS or whatever it is?
If we can convince the TPM chip that our emulator is "the motherboard" then we can bootstrap the rest of the system in fully trusted mode. As long as the TPM chip thinks it is talking to a fully trusted OS, we don't care diddly about the keys in the chip.
Could this be used to sufficiently virtualize a 'palladiumized' system such that we could run a hypothetical DRM-up-the-ass version of Windows in it and then from the host OS side peek at all the secret data that the copyright cartel thinks is locked down?
Oops! Looks like you weren't quite as anonymous as you thought you were and slashdot removed your moderations when you made that post. Three vindictive mod points wasted because you wanted to brag and were too sloppy, or stupid, to do it right.
Exactly what have you said wasn't covered by, "The worst Blockbuster has done is refuse to carry NC-17/unrated versions and thus put pressure for the studios to release R-rated cuts?"
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's their site and they are in no need to follow their own rules.
Where does an 800lb gorilla sit?
a) Anywhere he damn well wants.
b) Somewhere clear of other smaller animals
You appear to subscribe to the first train of thought.
Reading Gulliver's Travels might give you some pause.
In short, Gulliver arrived in the land of Lilliputia to find that all the inhabitants were mere inches tall. He was the 800lb gorilla.
Until one day he lay down to sleep and woke to find himself tied to the ground and immbolized by hundreds of threads with hundreds of angry Lilliputians standing on him. Gulliver was lucky to make it out alive.
"We want to make sure our ATMs are integrated with every other channel so when I do a deposit in a [branch] I want to be able to go to [an] ATM immediately and see that deposit"
That is a misquote, the reporter, as is so typical with the press, misunderstood and then rewrote his misunderstanding for "clarity."
What he really said is:
"We want to make sure our ATMs are integrated with every other IRC channel so when I command my army of zombie robot ATMs, I can go to my target's ATM immediately and see the money drain from his account.
"We have previously tested this technology in the field with our automated voting machines and it worked very well, succesfully draining over 10% of the votes cast."
Why don't they require something useful, like a boob-cast flag?
Then I could set my DVR to only record shows with the BCF set to 'TRUE'.
They already did, it is called the v-chip -- almost all tv's manufactured since 2000 have a v-chip, almost all programming contains v-chip readable flags. The v-chip flag isn't applied to news or live sports, so you would not have automatically grabbed Janet's teat, but otherwise just about every broadcast program is flagged.
But of course, having a technical solution to this "indecency" problem is no solution at all, the real goal of the people behind the "decency" brouhaha is to control the content of the airwaves. The v-chip gives control to the owner of the TV, not the owners of the tv broadcasters. So, we'll be sure to pass more laws restricting contaact and pretend that we are really legislating decency and morality.
The Linux Increase Can Be Attributed to none other than IBM I would presume.
Hardly "none other."
IBM is second in Linux server revenue with 23.5% of the market, HP is first at 26%.
source
they are so concerned about maintaining the security of their data that they gave it (in a very non-descript way mind you) to a group of people outside of their organization who have a history of struggling with integrity.
Wait, are you talking about the baggage handlers or the Managemenet of BofA?
So far, EVD has been a flop. I tend to agree with you that a lot of China's moves like this are about abusive patent regimes, but I'm no longer so hopeful about them making much of a difference.
MBNA, Citi and Discover all use the same platform, it is provided by Orbiscom. I think there are probably some other banks too, those are just the big ones I know of. Oddly enough American Express used to have a similar program and cancelled it.
I've been using the MBNA version for many years and hundreds of transaction, and have not had a single fraudulent charge since I started. If they would come up with a version that let me use it at brick & mortar stores, with real plastic, I would be ecstatic.
You are reading way too much into his use of the term inefficient. It is clearly a technical distinction, not a content distinction. Niche indices are clearly much more efficient at searching their database than google is at searching its database. No more, no less.
I think it's pretty clear that this guy doesn't understand how to use search engines properly and doesn't have the patience to learn.
I think you've never used a good search engine. So far, by their nature, they are mostly limited to specific niches. But he is absolutely right when he says that google is inefficient. Scaling the functionality of the niche search tools to something as broad as the entire net or even just the "blogosphere" is damn hard, but librarians are on the cutting edge of that research. Google may be the best tool at what it does today, but that doesn't mean it is even close to the best possible tool.
Comparing google to a tool like lexis/nexis is like comparing a bicycle a formula 1 race car. The bicycle can go pretty much anywhere but it is going to take a heck of a long time and you'll be pretty sore by the time you get there. The formula 1 car isn't much good off the track, but on track it's orders of magnitude more powerful than any bicycle.
What google has taught us is that advertising can support freely copy-able content if done right.
Huh? What are you talking about? Google is a content aggregator, not a content creator. All they have shown is that advertising can support fairly complicated and high-volume, AUTOMATED aggregation.
The major difference is that while the band may not "see" anything in the short term, every sale chips away at their debt
That ain't going to happen when your album is out of print because you are one of those 9 out of 10 bands that were not popular enough.
and if the album does happen to go platinum (or better), they will start to to receive royalties.
You are talking about a small subset of that 1 out of 10 that do get to record a second album. Typically when your first couple of albums go platinum, you barely see a dime either. It's only when you renegotiate your countract that you can have a hope of seeing any substantial income for future albums, never mind the previous ones.
You really are quite naive about the way the American music industry works.
You mean this "little shop" that makes money off other people's works without paying those other people? (Note - the performers of the music you download do not get any money from your "purchase". The songwriters get a very small amount, but that's all. Those who perform it get nothing.).
And how exactly is this substantially different from the American music industry? The music industry where more than 9 out of 10 bands that sign recording contracts end up in debt to their own recording company, without any ownership of the music they've recorded and with no chance of recording a second album?
Really, I gotta wonder, what the hell are you running that requires that many pages to be in memory at the same time.
The latest firefox beta release.
It has a memory leak.
I'm guessing that, for them to bite - the big production houses would need to know that they could make more money using this model than the current broadcast > DVD > Syndication one.
Remember that the proposed business model does not exist in a vacuum. The current model is endangered by both unauthorized internet distribution and tivo-enabled commercial skipping. Thus, while the current model may end up being sustainable in the long run, it won't be at levels anywhere near as profitable as it is today.
Hollywood is notoroious for trying to put the genie back into the bottle instead of asking it for three wishes, so who knows what it will take to convince them.
it seems like it would still require the establishment of some sort of "network" to really get the word out worldwide.
Agreed, advertising gets both harder and easier. You'll need some kind of central location for people to find out about new productions. Plus, you either need to be really convincing to persuade people to put their money up (although part of the idea is that the money is refunded if the show is not produced) or give away a couple of episodes to hook people - either way costs money and is a risk.
But, on the other side, once established with a few shows bought and paid for, all the released episodes serve as free advertising for the next episode's production costs.
I believe thats why being able to legally download a tv-show for a $1 an episode won't kill the dvd industry because a video clip on your computer, is a whole lot different to having a brand spanking new dvd in your hand to watch in your personal home theatre with 5.1 sound and amazing picture quality.
That's the entertainment equivalent of Bill Gates apocryphal, "640K should be more than enough for everybody."
Today anyone can download MPEG4(XviD) AVI's of current shows like Lost, 24, Joan of Arcadia, Smallville, Enterprise, Veronica Mars, Joey, Carnivale, etc that are higher resolution than DVD and with multi-channel audio - they have been sourced from the HDTV broadcasts and transcoded to MPEG4. Somet maintain the original HDTV resolution, some have been stepped down to something like 960x576p which is still better than DVD. These AVI files are also 2-4 times smaller than the equivalent MPEG2 files for standard DVD.
There are already multi-function stand-alone DVD players that can play DVDs of these high resolution AVI files and their number will only increase as the year progresses.
So, while for the majority of people today downloads don't directly compete with TV on DVD releases, it is only a matter of time, probably a rather short time, until they do.
Given that, let's take that $1 and skip the network middlemen. Don't give it to NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX/ETC with all their overhead. Give it directly to the production house. Follow along with me here:
The average half-hour sitcom costs $2M per episode to produce. The average hour-long drama costs about $4M per episode. These numbers are probably on the high side.
So an hour-long show would break even if it had an audience of 4 million who were willing to put up $1 each. If the paying audience was 5 million, that's a 25% profit. If the audience is willing to pay the money for each episode far enough ahead of time (say a "season pass" of $25 up front) that means the profit could be locked in before production even starts.
That lock-in is a HUGE risk reduction - most shows today are money losers until they make it into syndication, which requires about 4 seasons worth of shows. Yet more than 80% of shows are cancelled before their 4th season. Thus making a profit up front is BIG deal for the tv production industry.
So what should this hypothetical paying audience expect in return for this guaranteed profit they are handing the production company? How about, ownership of the results? A typical work-for-hire situation where the "employer" is the public at large. In other words, the production company gets paid with a nice return on their investment and ownership of the result passes immediately into the public domain upon payment.
Then anyone could share copies of the show with anyone else and not have to worry about "stealing from the artists" or being persecuted for commiting copyright infringement. The creators get paid and the audience gets the content, which they can burn to DVD themselves, or just delete off their hard disk once they are done with it knowing that somewhere out on the net there is an archive of the show if they need a copy again.
Since the end result is in the public domain, the local broadcasters could still broadcast it with their own commercials for the audience that isn't motivated enough to download it. Which means that local tv stations would have an interest in footing part of the bill themselves, kind of like syndication fees, the end result being that you don't need all 5 million people to still hit that $5M per episode mark - just 100 local stations across the world, each putting in $10k per episode would cut the paying audience number down to 4 million.
A lot of these numbers are pessimistic - for example, in its first year, Star Trek the Next Generation was carried in syndication on over 200 stations. In its first syndication run (i.e. second broadcast), Cheers was on 450 stations at an average of $3.6K per station per episod
With any luck, these hydrogen stations will mark the beginning of the end for Islamic tyranny from the Middle East. For too long, we have essentially financed terrorist operations by paying money for gasoline. They money goes to, for example, Saudi Arabia. The Arabs then secretly funnel a bit of that money to anti-American groups in the Middle East.
How odd. You see, my hope for hydrogen, and really any alternative fuel is that it will be the end of tyranny in the middle east. For too long we have essentially financed tyrants and dictatorships by paying money for gasoline. The money goes to, for example, Saudi Arabia and the royal family uses it to maintain their absolute rule over the country, they openly give money to radical religious groups who distract the population from their country's own internal problems and focus them external issues like America and Israel.
We end up financing the dictators and preventing the natural social progression to democracy.
Look around- how many autistic people do you see working in computers? I see none where I work. Unless you count me- my mother insists I have Aspbergers
You should know then that Aspbergers is quite common in this industry. Maybe you just don't know how to recognize it, but all the stereotypes of geeks being socially inept have Aspbergers at their root. That's not to say that all geeks are high-functioning autistics. But, it is easier to mask in environments where their logical/reasoning/technical skills are valued over skills at socialization. Maybe you just need to look closer at the people around you.
From your description of her as, "busy being a teenage girl" it sounds like she is in the high-functioning end of the autistic spectrum, because the people in the middle to lower range are barely able to even BE a teenager in a way that society recognizes and avoiding the stigma of geekiness just isn't even a comprehenisble concept to them.
It is easy to say from the other side of the internet, but one of the best things anyone can do for her is to get her as much positive exposure to a wide range of "autistic-excelling" skills so that pattern-matching ability which makes her good at jigsaw puzzles will get the chance to focus on a more (financially) rewarding area. You never know what oddball skill might "click" with her, whatever it is, chances are it won't be what society considers a traditional job so you have to keep open to as broad a range as possible.
FWIW, I am speaking from experience here, one of my closest relatives has asperbergers. Early on he focused on computers and did the rounds as sysadmin/programmer and he was somewhat better than average at it. But what he found is that he is really good at talking about and explaining the processes and logic behind all that stuff - he's got really low communication skills otherwise, zero socialization ability, zero non-verbal communication ability, hardly any empathy, etc. But if you ask him about the way a complex system works he can explain it and he can explain it in a way that regular "non-savant" type people can follow.
He's been able to leverage that ability to "talk about work" into a very high paying career, serving as "resident guru" for companies doing software development. He doesn't do any real work, he just helps the regular developers understand how best to do their work. At first glance, it's not your typcial aspergbers-friendly kind of job because of all the people-interaction. But from his perspective it is a perfect match because it is all technical discourse about stuff he is really focused on with very little non-verbal/emotional content.
It's probably something like talking about jigsaw puzzles with your sister, she could probably talk about them all day and go into the most exruciating detail about them. Just nobody really wants to know about jigsaw puzzles, but knowing how complex hardware and software systems work is a very valuable skill in today's market.
What if the ROM's checksum must be signed by someone that the TPM itself trusts? (i.e. the TPM will only trust a ROM, whose checksum is signed by, let's suppose, Dell or Pheonix.)
That's not a problem because the emulator would be feeding the TPM chip the real ROM. Just like we would be feeding it the real bootloader and the real OS. Remember it is the CPU that executes the code, not the TPM. The CPU that we have absolute control over in an emulation environment.
Nevermind that the TPM is not in the right hardware mode to verify trust of the ROM right now.
That's a reasonable defense. But how strong is it really? What if we can glitch the TPM into "rebooting" without disturbing the rest of the system? Perhaps through software or perhaps through a careful physical hack, like shorting the chip's reset pin.
Consider: don't you think that the "trusted" computing forces and their minions have thought of this? "Oh, duh! We were too stoopid to think of emulation. Dang!"
Either you've said that twice now or there was someone else with the same opinion. Either way, my answer to that is BULLSHIT! If I wanted to believe in the designers' infallibility, I would never have asked the question in the first place. It's the suits in the copyright cartel who buy that shit and the geeks on the net who prove them wrong.
The motherboard must first examine the bootloader to see that it trusts it.
Exactly what does that mean? The BIOS on the motherboard? Why can't we emulate the "the motherboard," BIOS or whatever it is?
If we can convince the TPM chip that our emulator is "the motherboard" then we can bootstrap the rest of the system in fully trusted mode. As long as the TPM chip thinks it is talking to a fully trusted OS, we don't care diddly about the keys in the chip.
Could this be used to sufficiently virtualize a 'palladiumized' system such that we could run a hypothetical DRM-up-the-ass version of Windows in it and then from the host OS side peek at all the secret data that the copyright cartel thinks is locked down?
Oh well, Philly is too phar away from me. But pheel phree to take advantage of the SCTV pricing yourselph.
I don't know why I did that, just phelt like it I guess.
Oops! Looks like you weren't quite as anonymous as you thought you were and slashdot removed your moderations when you made that post. Three vindictive mod points wasted because you wanted to brag and were too sloppy, or stupid, to do it right.
The first rule of vendettas on slashdot is don't brag about your vendetta on slashdot.
You'll regret it once the metamods read it.
Now that SHA-1 has been overthrown, we can expect that AYATOLLAH-1 will replace it as the ruling hashish maker.
You are an illiterate dumbass.
Exactly what have you said wasn't covered by, "The worst Blockbuster has done is refuse to carry NC-17/unrated versions and thus put pressure for the studios to release R-rated cuts?"