I can mention at least one case where the supposed inability of key duplication might be a big problem.
Several hotels that I know of have safes in the room, which lock with a Medeco key. Hotel guests are urged to stash their wallets, cameras, whatever in the safe, and take the key.
However, if every person who's ever stayed in that room might have a duplicate key, (or if the housekeeping staff could have duplicated several of the keys), then there's a bit of a hole in the security.
Granted, the thief would still have to get into the room. But the reason the safe is there in the first place is to protect valuables that the room itself isn't enough security for.
Agreed. What MS bought when they bought those "licenses" was a sock puppet. Something that can walk into court, or before the press, and squeak a lot, but who's immune to the consequences of it's actions because of it's complete disposability.
Frankly, if I were IBM or Novell, I'd LOVE for MS to buy that company, because then those things like the Lanham act actually have the potential of putting Bill Gates in jail.
Having had to recently retire my old e-mail server and migrate to a new one (because the old one had been compromised and was relaying), I'd been wondering if another tarpit-like idea would work.
My idea was a FAKE open relay. The box would accept SMTP connections, accept the spam, acknowledge receipt, and then pitch it.
I'd SUSPECT (but I don't know), that anybody who's SMTP-ing to my server with mail that isn't addressed to me is a spammer. They could merrily spam away, thinking that I was relaying their spam for them.
Drawbacks I see with the plan:
1) I could see my server getting blacklisted, because it LOOKS like an open relay. 2) The spammers ARE tieing up my bandwidth
Don't know about actual child porn, but there is a ton of malware out there that spreads through various P2P networks by creating files on the target computer that have names like "Hot Naked Teens" (which actually are executables containing the malware), and then sharing the file.
In addition, it occurs to me that if I were a kiddie porn trader, it would really be to my advantage to have some innocent sucker "host" my porn.
A rights management system monitors and controls use of a computer program to prevent use that is not in compliance with acceptable terms. The system monitors usage of the computer program for usage and activities that are not in compliance with the license or other use terms. Upon detection of a violation of these terms, state information pertaining to the computer program is saved and operation of the computer program and/or a portion of the computer system is suspended. The system maintains the suspension for as long as the violation exists. Once compliance has been reestablished, the suspension is terminated.
All Microsoft has to do to get around his patent is make it so that, once DRM breaks your computer, it stays broke. (Until you do something. Like, the infamous "format and reinstall".) (Which, BTW, you can only do once.)
I see a problem with publishing the vote totals DURING the election. Makes it too easy for the participants to tell where their efforts are working and where they need to rush the reinforcements.
But I've had an idea for some time for "open vote counting":
My e-voting system would be:
At the time of voting, the voter gets a receipt that shows who he voted for. The printer is an impact printer, loaded with 2-part paper. The carbon is retained by the printer.
The night of the election, the county publishes, on their web site, the machine-by-machine vote totals. (And the county- or district-wide totals).
Two weeks after the election, a CPA firm, selected at random, picks 5% of the machines at random, and verifies that the votes on the carbon matches the posted, electronic totals for that machine.
If 5% of the machines match the paper record exactly, then it's a pretty good bet that the other 95% are clean, too.
Two weeks after the audit, the carbons become public records. If the local paper wants to send people down to the courthouse to recount every single paper record (at their own expense), then knock yourselves out. If Joe Citizen kept his receipt, and he wants to check to make sure his vote is still recorded at the courthouse, then that's his right.
1) There are no "provisions in the constitution which protect anonymous voting". It could be argued to be part of our common-law heritage, or that it's a necessary component of honest voting, and therefore implied somehow. But it's certainly not stated.
2) If I, as (self-apointed) Supervisor of Elections for Smallville, publish a spreadsheet on my web site, showing how voter number 1 voted, how voter number 2 voted, and so forth, then the voters are the audit mechanism to verify that each line-item is unaltered, and the "total" line is simply a calculation derived from the detail lines.
(This type of a system would NOT guarantee no claims of election tampering. For example, there'd be nothing to prevent me from voting for Fred Flintstone, then CLAIMING I voted for Buggs Bunny, and running to the newspapers with a story that Fred stole the election. But I do believe that a voting system that's that open is a system that the voters would trust.)
Oh, come on! This is news?
Every version of Windows since (at least) 3.1 has had exactly the same slogan on the outside of the box: "Faster, more reliable".
(They haven't delivered on either promise. Not once. As far as I'm concerned, the last RELIABLE product MS released was DOS 6.22.)
I remember reading that after Win95 came out, sales aparantly didn't meet MS predictions. It was sucessfull, but not as much so as expected.
Supposedly, MS hired a polling company to surver 100K Win3.1 users who hadn't upgraded, and ask them "WHY haven't you upgraded to Win95?"
The answers were broken down into, IIR, 13 categories. Since many users gave multiple reasons, the total of all of the category votes totaled to well over 100%.
But supposedly, the #1 answer for "why haven't you upgraded?", scoring something like 85% was "My existing operating system works."
I maintain that MS has learned from this survey, and has no intention of ever making the same mistake again.
I'm also thinking that if the mission is a lunar colony (and it's certainly my goal, with Space Colonization as the next goal.) then we need the ability to deliver unmanned cargo modules to Moonbase Alpha (or whatever it's called.)
For one reason, any lunar base will have to be delivered in pieces and assembled on-site, or you need to deliver enough machinery with enough brains to build the place out of on-site materials. (I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the idea of a few "mobile homes. Hopefully with enough redundancy for emergencies.) And once you put people there, then they're going to need a lot of re-supply.
I'm thinking a good working target would be the ability to deliver a standard terrestrial cargo container, unmanned, with pretty good accuracy. (Most likely, with the ability to literally land on a target or beacon that would be delivered first.) You might be able to make it work with more, smaller modules, but I'd think that if your modules are much smaller than half the size of a cargo container then your base is going to be made up of way too many small, connected pieces.
(Another thing you then need is some kind of a 'dozer, that can be launched inside one of the containers, and which, after deployment, has the ability to move a loaded container. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the first modules would be the "dozer garage", which would have the ability to recharge the dozer.)
Or, it's because the XP machine also comes pre-installed with $50 worth of spyware and adware.
(Or, it could be because MS is still doing the deal where, to get OEM pricing on Windows, Dell has to pay for Windows on every system they sell, whether it actually HAS it or not.)
I liked the view, but a nagging voice kept saying thay put that camera there so that, if there's an accident, they can get better footage of it.
(Not that that's necessarily an [i]evil[/i] motive. Face it: That's also why aircraft have black boxes. It just seems, insensitive, or something.)
(I also wonder how much that camera reduces the payload. When it comes to the Shuttle, [i]everything's[/i] a tradeoff.)
OTOH, when we first started building the Space Station (and I'd thought it would be a transfer point for people and payloads going beyong LEO), I had this image of an exterior neon sign flashing "Gas"/"Food"/Gas"/"Food".
I think I agree, but I look at it slightly differently.
I think IBM just LOVES a market where the software is free, and people spend their money on hardware and support.
(And, even if they "get it", I don't see MS being able to transition to this model. For too long, their idea of "support" is "We've come out with a new version. Buy it, then we'll talk.")
(One of the funny things I've been noticing lately is how much easier it is for me to find answers to my questions about "free" software than about things I've paid for. Although, that may be because my typical Linux questions are a lot simpler than my Windows questions.)
>What evidence do you have that the gas companies are price fixing? That gas is expensive? It's a finite resource in high demand. Welcome to the way economics works. The infrastructure to drill for, transport, and refine oil into gasoline costs billions of dollars, and yet how much do you pay per gallon for bottled sugar water? Not to mention that here in the US ~$.30/gallon is tax...
Um, the fact that the price goes up and so does EVERYBODY'S profits?
The fact that NO ONE is taking advantage of the situation to lower their prices by a penny and increase market share?
Just a thought.
I remember asking co-worker why the (something) MS couldn't design a Service Pack that would update the software distribution point (Windows\Options\Cabs).
His counter question was: Why aren't service packs bootable CDs?
Wouldn't that make sense? Patching the OS while the OS isn't running?
Now, as to using IE to update IE, my question is Who decided that it would be a neet idea for my browser to have the ability to modify "an integral part of the operating system, your honor"?
This may be the same thing that somebody else (with more knowledge than me) just said, but is it possible that the disparity in memory size is because the vast bulk of IE is "an integral part of the operating system, your honor"? (And, therefore, doesn't get counted as IE (or swapped out)?
Even asking them *not* to do something is disruptive to their business chain. That's why they don't do it. It's not like they don't want the extra business, small as it might be. It would simply cost them more to cater to you.
If you want another example, try buying, say, a Dell desktop without a mouse.
They don't even have a "no mouse" option, because it's cheaper to throw a mouse into every box than it is to keep track of which ones don't get mice.
(Hoping I'm not wrong about this one.)
I seem to remember that was one of the things the DoJ convicted MS of: Aparantly, MS gives big OEMs a discount on their software, but the price is that their check to MS is based on the number of systems produced, not on number of systems with Windows installed.
I think MS says (with a straight face) that this is so Dell can't, say, claim they installed 10K copies, and really install 11K, or some such, and the fact that it means the OEM can't sell Linux systems for less money than Windows is "merely a coincidence".
Slashdot Mirror
I can mention at least one case where the supposed inability of key duplication might be a big problem. Several hotels that I know of have safes in the room, which lock with a Medeco key. Hotel guests are urged to stash their wallets, cameras, whatever in the safe, and take the key. However, if every person who's ever stayed in that room might have a duplicate key, (or if the housekeeping staff could have duplicated several of the keys), then there's a bit of a hole in the security. Granted, the thief would still have to get into the room. But the reason the safe is there in the first place is to protect valuables that the room itself isn't enough security for.
Agreed. What MS bought when they bought those "licenses" was a sock puppet. Something that can walk into court, or before the press, and squeak a lot, but who's immune to the consequences of it's actions because of it's complete disposability.
Frankly, if I were IBM or Novell, I'd LOVE for MS to buy that company, because then those things like the Lanham act actually have the potential of putting Bill Gates in jail.
Having had to recently retire my old e-mail server and migrate to a new one (because the old one had been compromised and was relaying), I'd been wondering if another tarpit-like idea would work.
My idea was a FAKE open relay. The box would accept SMTP connections, accept the spam, acknowledge receipt, and then pitch it.
I'd SUSPECT (but I don't know), that anybody who's SMTP-ing to my server with mail that isn't addressed to me is a spammer. They could merrily spam away, thinking that I was relaying their spam for them.
Drawbacks I see with the plan:
1) I could see my server getting blacklisted, because it LOOKS like an open relay.
2) The spammers ARE tieing up my bandwidth
But still, I wonder if it would help.
Don't know about actual child porn, but there is a ton of malware out there that spreads through various P2P networks by creating files on the target computer that have names like "Hot Naked Teens" (which actually are executables containing the malware), and then sharing the file.
In addition, it occurs to me that if I were a kiddie porn trader, it would really be to my advantage to have some innocent sucker "host" my porn.
From the patent:
A rights management system monitors and controls use of a computer program to prevent use that is not in compliance with acceptable terms. The system monitors usage of the computer program for usage and activities that are not in compliance with the license or other use terms. Upon detection of a violation of these terms, state information pertaining to the computer program is saved and operation of the computer program and/or a portion of the computer system is suspended. The system maintains the suspension for as long as the violation exists. Once compliance has been reestablished, the suspension is terminated.
All Microsoft has to do to get around his patent is make it so that, once DRM breaks your computer, it stays broke. (Until you do something. Like, the infamous "format and reinstall".) (Which, BTW, you can only do once.)
I see a problem with publishing the vote totals DURING the election. Makes it too easy for the participants to tell where their efforts are working and where they need to rush the reinforcements.
But I've had an idea for some time for "open vote counting":
My e-voting system would be:
At the time of voting, the voter gets a receipt that shows who he voted for. The printer is an impact printer, loaded with 2-part paper. The carbon is retained by the printer.
The night of the election, the county publishes, on their web site, the machine-by-machine vote totals. (And the county- or district-wide totals).
Two weeks after the election, a CPA firm, selected at random, picks 5% of the machines at random, and verifies that the votes on the carbon matches the posted, electronic totals for that machine.
If 5% of the machines match the paper record exactly, then it's a pretty good bet that the other 95% are clean, too.
Two weeks after the audit, the carbons become public records. If the local paper wants to send people down to the courthouse to recount every single paper record (at their own expense), then knock yourselves out. If Joe Citizen kept his receipt, and he wants to check to make sure his vote is still recorded at the courthouse, then that's his right.
1) There are no "provisions in the constitution which protect anonymous voting". It could be argued to be part of our common-law heritage, or that it's a necessary component of honest voting, and therefore implied somehow. But it's certainly not stated. 2) If I, as (self-apointed) Supervisor of Elections for Smallville, publish a spreadsheet on my web site, showing how voter number 1 voted, how voter number 2 voted, and so forth, then the voters are the audit mechanism to verify that each line-item is unaltered, and the "total" line is simply a calculation derived from the detail lines. (This type of a system would NOT guarantee no claims of election tampering. For example, there'd be nothing to prevent me from voting for Fred Flintstone, then CLAIMING I voted for Buggs Bunny, and running to the newspapers with a story that Fred stole the election. But I do believe that a voting system that's that open is a system that the voters would trust.)
I'm trying to remember: Is IBM the ONLY company to EVER partner with Microsoft that's still in business?
Oh, come on! This is news? Every version of Windows since (at least) 3.1 has had exactly the same slogan on the outside of the box: "Faster, more reliable". (They haven't delivered on either promise. Not once. As far as I'm concerned, the last RELIABLE product MS released was DOS 6.22.) I remember reading that after Win95 came out, sales aparantly didn't meet MS predictions. It was sucessfull, but not as much so as expected. Supposedly, MS hired a polling company to surver 100K Win3.1 users who hadn't upgraded, and ask them "WHY haven't you upgraded to Win95?" The answers were broken down into, IIR, 13 categories. Since many users gave multiple reasons, the total of all of the category votes totaled to well over 100%. But supposedly, the #1 answer for "why haven't you upgraded?", scoring something like 85% was "My existing operating system works." I maintain that MS has learned from this survey, and has no intention of ever making the same mistake again.
I'm also thinking that if the mission is a lunar colony (and it's certainly my goal, with Space Colonization as the next goal.) then we need the ability to deliver unmanned cargo modules to Moonbase Alpha (or whatever it's called.)
For one reason, any lunar base will have to be delivered in pieces and assembled on-site, or you need to deliver enough machinery with enough brains to build the place out of on-site materials. (I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the idea of a few "mobile homes. Hopefully with enough redundancy for emergencies.) And once you put people there, then they're going to need a lot of re-supply.
I'm thinking a good working target would be the ability to deliver a standard terrestrial cargo container, unmanned, with pretty good accuracy. (Most likely, with the ability to literally land on a target or beacon that would be delivered first.) You might be able to make it work with more, smaller modules, but I'd think that if your modules are much smaller than half the size of a cargo container then your base is going to be made up of way too many small, connected pieces.
(Another thing you then need is some kind of a 'dozer, that can be launched inside one of the containers, and which, after deployment, has the ability to move a loaded container. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the first modules would be the "dozer garage", which would have the ability to recharge the dozer.)
Most-used tool on our bench: Mini maglight flashlight (2-AA size). They come with a nylon holster, which can be easily attached to the bench.
Or, it's because the XP machine also comes pre-installed with $50 worth of spyware and adware.
(Or, it could be because MS is still doing the deal where, to get OEM pricing on Windows, Dell has to pay for Windows on every system they sell, whether it actually HAS it or not.)
I liked the view, but a nagging voice kept saying thay put that camera there so that, if there's an accident, they can get better footage of it. (Not that that's necessarily an [i]evil[/i] motive. Face it: That's also why aircraft have black boxes. It just seems, insensitive, or something.) (I also wonder how much that camera reduces the payload. When it comes to the Shuttle, [i]everything's[/i] a tradeoff.)
OTOH, when we first started building the Space Station (and I'd thought it would be a transfer point for people and payloads going beyong LEO), I had this image of an exterior neon sign flashing "Gas"/"Food"/Gas"/"Food".
I think I agree, but I look at it slightly differently. I think IBM just LOVES a market where the software is free, and people spend their money on hardware and support. (And, even if they "get it", I don't see MS being able to transition to this model. For too long, their idea of "support" is "We've come out with a new version. Buy it, then we'll talk.") (One of the funny things I've been noticing lately is how much easier it is for me to find answers to my questions about "free" software than about things I've paid for. Although, that may be because my typical Linux questions are a lot simpler than my Windows questions.)
>What evidence do you have that the gas companies are price fixing? That gas is expensive? It's a finite resource in high demand. Welcome to the way economics works. The infrastructure to drill for, transport, and refine oil into gasoline costs billions of dollars, and yet how much do you pay per gallon for bottled sugar water? Not to mention that here in the US ~$.30/gallon is tax... Um, the fact that the price goes up and so does EVERYBODY'S profits? The fact that NO ONE is taking advantage of the situation to lower their prices by a penny and increase market share? Just a thought.
I remember asking co-worker why the (something) MS couldn't design a Service Pack that would update the software distribution point (Windows\Options\Cabs). His counter question was: Why aren't service packs bootable CDs? Wouldn't that make sense? Patching the OS while the OS isn't running? Now, as to using IE to update IE, my question is Who decided that it would be a neet idea for my browser to have the ability to modify "an integral part of the operating system, your honor"?
This may be the same thing that somebody else (with more knowledge than me) just said, but is it possible that the disparity in memory size is because the vast bulk of IE is "an integral part of the operating system, your honor"? (And, therefore, doesn't get counted as IE (or swapped out)?
Even asking them *not* to do something is disruptive to their business chain. That's why they don't do it. It's not like they don't want the extra business, small as it might be. It would simply cost them more to cater to you. If you want another example, try buying, say, a Dell desktop without a mouse. They don't even have a "no mouse" option, because it's cheaper to throw a mouse into every box than it is to keep track of which ones don't get mice. (Hoping I'm not wrong about this one.)
I'm curious about this, too. If the HD is pre-imaged at, say, Seagate, then who decides that "It's an HP, so load it up with spyware"?
I seem to remember that was one of the things the DoJ convicted MS of: Aparantly, MS gives big OEMs a discount on their software, but the price is that their check to MS is based on the number of systems produced, not on number of systems with Windows installed.
I think MS says (with a straight face) that this is so Dell can't, say, claim they installed 10K copies, and really install 11K, or some such, and the fact that it means the OEM can't sell Linux systems for less money than Windows is "merely a coincidence".