Uh... what happened to the slashdot policy of "check them dar.. links" before posting, and then what happen to the editorial checking, and reading, links before passing a post to the mass?
You have a skill of grossly miss-representing the context of my text.
Furthermore... Am I a troll? Seems like a label you cleanly assign at the top of your speech to de-validate me.... like an attack?
I would not like to argue with your nor would I like to dissect your labeling system of me. However, I would printout that your characterization, or implied belief in what I was saying seems to be incorrect based on your retort.
However, before I start... I would like to point out the insight you provide is, to a point, true... it is not about communism vs. capitalism... how you got that interpretation is anybody's guess?
No... what I say is that the economic analysts that are part of the major economic publications typically, and historically point to open source projects as a bad investment.
They, like most capitalist, see open source as a bad economic model, and rightly so. The folks in the open source community typically tend to do things for reasons greater that mere economic personal gain, however this is not always the case.
In general, I'd say that the folks at the major economic publications are bias, and tend to target their analysis to the older more conservative crowd of investors... this is also a crowd of folks almost diametrically different in views from the folks in the open source community.
However, I'm not saying it is the fault of these analysts that the very few open source developers that do earn a buck from a pay-roll get fired. No, it is simple math and a recession.
What does nothing cost? Does nothing have a tangable asset value? What is the portfolio of nothing?
open source has always been a nothing type of bussiness. I'd say a small fraction of open source developers get contributions back from their user base in the form of donations, contributions, etc.. I'd say an even smaller a number of folks are on the pay-roll of a company paying them to work on open source. Think of this: IBM pays a guy to rip-off the linux kernel to make it work on the BIG-IRON machines. THis would be something that the company has a vested interest in. THese developers are the exception, not the rule.
I write open source sorftware, and do as a contribution to humanity. I hope I violate as many patents, and copyrights as I can allong the way. I do everything for free, with zero tangable gain, except for the intelectual prowes gainned from doing code. There inlies another major aspect of the open source comunity: rebel developers without a cause. Most developers code just because its fun, or because there is a vacume to be filled, or like me just do it to be-little the stock of major companies selling non-open software of the same merrits.
However, for those folks at the wall street journal (the anylists, market watchers, and the entrenched hardcore oldies) who look at all bussiness's prospects. To them they see "open source" as something almost anti-capitalistinc, or rather something to sink you money into if you are eager to loss money. From their perspective, open source is an open-money pit ready for a camp fire. Lets just say I belive the anyalisis of these folks are correct, open source's capital sucks... as it always has. DUh!!
Open source is not run by money. It is operated by the motivation of its creators, maintainers, etc.. Open source is a spark, but this spark doens't nessecarily power an engine of commerce. Rather the engine is the pride, the joy of accomplishment we humans have before we die. Sorta like the building of the pyramids: totally crazy, yet totally cool!;)
I know I speak to the choir here on/.... but heck... who cares, right?
I mean, its one things to see a site get slash-dot'ed, but yet another to see a site gone the moment slashdot posts the link. What gives? Maybe that spam-canon's lawyer has more pull/push than we think.... I mean.. to get the site slashed before slashdot can... talk about power!!
THe R.I.A.A was created to protect the lyrics of song writers. What it became is another story. The reason I know so much about this is because I was once affiliated with the R.I.A.A when I tried to started a small record lable in Austin, Tx. I have argued about the R.I.A.A for many years now with all sorts of people. Lets just say I know what I'm talking about from first hand experience.
as I mentions in my post... the original intent was to protect the artists from other artists.
BTW- I have a box in my storage that has all the R.I.A.A papers from back in the day that they sent me. One document sticks out in my mind, basically a brochure describing the services and benifites the organization provides. They were clearly offering services that protects artists, and record lables, at a cost mind you.
The R.I.A.A was established to protect artists from other artist's. It was a sorta of safety net to protect the lyrics from being used by other artists in derivative works. The R.I.A.A was also a database of song lyrics, that could easily determine if your song was infringing on 'prior art'. It was a service for artists by artists, at least originally. The R.I.A.A sold itself to small upstart music labels, typically the really cool small labels that had limited funds to pay for lawyers. It was good for everyone since infringement issues were not the norm back then. You must realize that the big issue was artists taking the lyrics and making derivative works (aka covers songs, etc...)
Enter onto the scean digital samplers. Once Roland, EMU, Ensoniq, and other started selling good digital samplers for a reasonable price... A whole slew of copyright protection changed...as taking samples (aka perfect clones) of the actual original work was made supper easy. Its true that the artists could simply use the traditional analog technology to do the same, but with the emergence of electronic genre (aka disco, new wave, techno, industrial) the people doing the recordings were exposed to a new art... the manipulation of samples. Other factors are at play here too, but it was in this general time span things were starting to change (80's & 90's)
This new era brought with it an increase of non-lyric infringements, and the R.I.A.A database was not so effective. By this time the R.I.A.A had become a sort of insurance company, who would not only serve as a watch dog group for song writers, but as an entity who purpose was to protect the investments of the record labels, who were acting as middle men for the artists.
It is true that the record labels would typically purchase the rights to the songs from the artists in deals that were typically penned by the recording companies. In this way the R.I.A.A shifted from being an organization that protected the artist, to an organization that protected the rights of the record companies (who assumed the rights of the artists).
This is what got us in our present condition. The record companies think they are the artists... and in fact when a record company exec wants a new hit single... it is not an issue of recruiting a rising star, its about creating the next new hit.... by means of record-for-hire.... hence bands like Nsync, and the likes (no offence Nsync).
You see... the record companies don't have the time to wait for real artists to come up with a hit single... the creative process simple doesn't fit into the cash-revenue cycle. This cycle is out-pacing the creative juices of real artists...
So it is true that the Recording companies are paying for the production of new songs, paying for the lyrics used in those songs, and in general own the entire creative process in many situations, except those coming from the smaller recording companies, who typically represent the real artists.... However... this doesn't stop the recording companies from looking at them all the same. If they can own the entire recording process of their artist, why now have the same ownership rights of the art they acquire via the smaller record companies.
The issues can be quite sticky sometimes. The most common thing I see is a lack of understanding on how far reaching the recording company contracts really are. These things are in favor of the record company, and in turn the R.I.A.A must protect the record companies if they are going to feed the wallets of their highly paid lawyers.
The solution you ask... the best idea would be for the artists to create a coalition that they can directly interface with, and use to protect their lyrics, and their recordings directly. They also need a direct distribution system that pays them, and not the record companies. Online distribution would be good, but what ever that system might be would have to make use of encryption to protect the rights on the artists, and the artist would hold the encryption keys used to decipher the music, and your purchase of the medium would involve an exchange of keys. Obviously this is way too much work for an artist, who cannot be expected to be a crypto expert. Again, recording companies would step in and manage this for the artist... however.. They would probably want the right to the music. But what the artist don't seem to understand is they can still maintain the copy rights on the music while deferring the distribution rights to a 3rd party. It comes clear when you differentiate distribution rights from copyrights..... For example... I give you the right to be the only company to sell my song, but I still own my songs... you just have my permission to duplicate and distribute my works... and only on a limited basis at that.
From the persepective of mp3/ogg trading geeks... its seem to skip our the minds that the R.I.A.A once stood for something good. Despite the open nature of our software community (aka BSD license, and the GNU) the artist are in it for the plesure of writing songs first, and making money second. THe R.I.A.A and the FSF has something in common here.... they protect the rights, and recognition of the original artists. If you steal the lyrics of my songs, and don't at least give me blulb somewhere in the distro... I would sue you.... The FSF does the exact same.... Think about it.
Actually I'm thinking of way to justify the cash expence in purchasing one of these boards. I'm wondering how much faster this would increase the speed of my application as opposed to software based crypto? If I were to grab one of these boards... I wouldn't neccesarily want to use the Data Encipher Standard, but rather experiment with a new crypto system.
My only basis for mentioning Blowfish is because that is what I use in my application currently. This seems to be reasonably fast, but several folks have said that the cipher is not old enough for their taste.
Did you have something to say about IRC, or OPN... or did you just stop by to get your cheap rise? I already know the answer to the question, but I just want to hear a trolls answer... I'm sure your reply will contain all the normal moron character attacks... the reason you have nothing inteligent to say is because your an idiot....
Nobody takes you serriously, seeing how your comments just keep getting moderation points in the negative.
I think Sun Microsystems** takes BSD serriously, as well as HP considering both companies based their products on BSD. Not to mention the thousands of ISP's out there who are BSD based too, as this is FreeBSD main customer. I could go on, and on.... example after example...
Thanks for pointing out my typo's.... hehehe.
However, I don't see how your choice of topics has anything to do with IRC, or the OPN network? Did you have anything inteligent to say, or were you just looking to get a jolly rise out of bashing on people ?
but with your bitter attitude... I'd have no trouble banning you.;)
I think mark Twain said it best: "the whole world knows your a fool, but when you open your mount, you remove all doubt."
So go ahead, open your mouth, and confirm your foolishness some more. =)
BTW - irc.linux.com isx just one node in the OPN network. If your so ready to jump to conclusions based on things you dont' know... then I should have just said go to irc.openprojects.net, with no "linux" in the name.....
In case anyone doesn't know... this is the developer sanctuary. A place for developers to communicate without the weenies getting in the way.... well their are still weenies (this is irc ya know), but it is at least a more stable place. I've been using it to work on mod_mp3... stop by #mod_mp3 on irc.linux.com sometime.
Well then.... if Euro folks are so adimate to censor people, then why don't they just create a proxie, and firewall, for their people? This would shelter their citizens from all that evil free speech, and free expression. While thier at it, why not just physically remove the internet, and replace it with euro-net.... a fully contained intra-net for euro folks that is protected from the hate-mongers?
serriously folks, the most logical reason this amendment is being slipped in is because the USA court rulled that Frenchy anti-hate laws do not apply to USA based companies. I would not doubt it to find that a french person sponsored this addition into being. IT is too ironic that this slips in not even a week after the USA court rullings.
"I HATE YOU"
OOOO.. oh no... I said it.... now I'm going to be banned in Europe.... and slahsdot is going to be sued in a French court....... its a damn shame.
Go ahead... balkanize the internet.... the folks in the USA wiull simply go on with what we have always done... freely express ourselves. And the folks in Europ will still do what they always do... read USA internet sites.
As if anything is going to change by this.... it might lift the ego of some politician for a year or two. If Europe folks are so advanced, and enlightend then it would seem that they would be mature enough to simply not look at the hatefull items on the net....
Thanks for responding... I enjoy our talks... to bad we have to use slashdot as a medium......
BTW - my level of crypto knowledge could be considered novice... I only read the Applied Crypto book by Bruce, and I use Blowfish on my website. I know, I'm a lame nobody... but I love pumping your for info... thanks =)
I have a passing interest in keeping others out of my affairs, and if I could afford this IBM board... I'd use it on my server instead of using a software based cyrpto system.. like the mcrypt libs I use now. I sure wish this type of tech were marketed to the small fry, like myself.... if IBM were smart... they could capitalize on this press coverage to their advantage.
In environments where the system cannot be updated in the field (smart card operating systems, for example), secret systems are clearly more secure. In environments where the system can be patched immediately, openness is clearly more secure. In spaces in between, which covers most of the real world, the security situation is, well, in between.
It has been argued that security via obsurity is not really secure at all... just secret. Yet clearly obscurity is secure.... however... its biggest weakness is the obscurity.
Duh. I was thinking about.......
Yeah... I think IBM should use linux kernel for the board... why not... except the license will take the product hostage, yet at the same time protect IBM. A double edge sword.
Going back to the Obscurity aspect... I would argue that all systems should be treated as though they are insecure... and already broken... it tends to make security better. Forinstance, beaming a new key to a communications satalite, or two analog cell phones (radios) trading keys over the air-waves... These systems undergo the best scrutiny..... the enemy
Yet, that is not the issue at hand.... what he have here is buggy software kit. THe IBM board is still secure, and to my understanding the software is the only part that needs to be re-evaluated. I wonder if it would be possible to add Blowfish to the kit? YOu say you knwo the guys that work on this.... have they said anything about using non-DES (aka non-IBM and the goverment with their backdoors) type of ciphers??
yupppers.... just look at the Dimitri S.. being prosecuted in the USA for crimes against the us law that he commited in his country.... thus... if any Yahoo execs ever fly to France, you had better watch out... cuz I'm sure these countries would love to play this ball game on US citizens.
So now what? The french goverment is going to do what.... have a pissing match with the US lawmakers?
"Rosen and other leaders in the Web services industry shared their knowledge, experiences and visions for the future of the Internet at the informative sessions offered throughout the November 5-8 schedule....."
Excuse me? Since when... I mean since when was Hillary Rosen been considered a "leader" in the web services industry? Um... Hillary might be a leader of the RIAA, but the RIAA isn't considered a leader of technology, nor the internet.
Take this article with a grain of salt. It is short, and not very acurate. I'd say the author is a novice reporter, and must have been under the impression that if they report on a speech at a technical conference... it must be an important player in the internet industry. Too bad.
The RIAA is a good thing for small record lables...... they have a good sales pitch involving way to protect the assets of your artists... to the tune of if another music artist steals your lyrcs... you got protection... this is what the RIAA was built to do... protect song writers.... they are not a technology savy bunch... unless you think a cd-audio disc is high-tech.
If I were Nvidia, I'd try to buy-out Transmeta... I mean Tramsmeta has a dream team of chip designers. Nvidia seems to be in a very good position these days... as their company makes chips way more complex than an Intel P4. Since they recently entered into the AMD chip-set arena with the upcoming Nforce chipset... if stands to reason that Nvidia would be calculating its current holdings to leverage a buyout. This is purly theory on my part here, so don't go tell your mom'n'pop just yet. But lets continue to look at the situation... Nvidia took a chance on buying out 3Dfx when it had sealled the deal to make the game-consol. So now that its only competion is the Radion card, who knows...
You have to go to the link, and make sure to look at the large image near the bottom.
The image shows the 32bit pci bus only running at 33Mhz! I mean... I own a DIGITAL AlphaStation 4/233, and it has a 33Mhz. THis box is from 97.
Just guessing from what I saw on the page... the kit is a strange malgamation of old, and new technology. The system has 133Mhz, btw nothing new for Alpha, for the memory bus, but not the pci bus.
So... its is 64 bits.... but it isn't that special either.
Slashdot Mirror
it appears to have been post-fixed after my comment.
;p
Uh... what happened to the slashdot policy of "check them dar.. links" before posting, and then what happen to the editorial checking, and reading, links before passing a post to the mass?
You have a skill of grossly miss-representing the context of my text.
Furthermore... Am I a troll? Seems like a label you cleanly assign at the top of your speech to de-validate me.... like an attack?
I would not like to argue with your nor would I like to dissect your labeling system of me. However, I would printout that your characterization, or implied belief in what I was saying seems to be incorrect based on your retort.
However, before I start... I would like to point out the insight you provide is, to a point, true... it is not about communism vs. capitalism... how you got that interpretation is anybody's guess?
No... what I say is that the economic analysts that are part of the major economic publications typically, and historically point to open source projects as a bad investment.
They, like most capitalist, see open source as a bad economic model, and rightly so. The folks in the open source community typically tend to do things for reasons greater that mere economic personal gain, however this is not always the case.
In general, I'd say that the folks at the major economic publications are bias, and tend to target their analysis to the older more conservative crowd of investors... this is also a crowd of folks almost diametrically different in views from the folks in the open source community.
However, I'm not saying it is the fault of these analysts that the very few open source developers that do earn a buck from a pay-roll get fired. No, it is simple math and a recession.
nope..... I make errors all the time.
Do I seem like a troll, or are you just quick to brand people?
What does nothing cost? Does nothing have a tangable asset value? What is the portfolio of nothing?
;)
/. ... but heck... who cares, right?
open source has always been a nothing type of bussiness. I'd say a small fraction of open source developers get contributions back from their user base in the form of donations, contributions, etc.. I'd say an even smaller a number of folks are on the pay-roll of a company paying them to work on open source. Think of this: IBM pays a guy to rip-off the linux kernel to make it work on the BIG-IRON machines. THis would be something that the company has a vested interest in. THese developers are the exception, not the rule.
I write open source sorftware, and do as a contribution to humanity. I hope I violate as many patents, and copyrights as I can allong the way. I do everything for free, with zero tangable gain, except for the intelectual prowes gainned from doing code. There inlies another major aspect of the open source comunity: rebel developers without a cause. Most developers code just because its fun, or because there is a vacume to be filled, or like me just do it to be-little the stock of major companies selling non-open software of the same merrits.
However, for those folks at the wall street journal (the anylists, market watchers, and the entrenched hardcore oldies) who look at all bussiness's prospects. To them they see "open source" as something almost anti-capitalistinc, or rather something to sink you money into if you are eager to loss money. From their perspective, open source is an open-money pit ready for a camp fire. Lets just say I belive the anyalisis of these folks are correct, open source's capital sucks... as it always has. DUh!!
Open source is not run by money. It is operated by the motivation of its creators, maintainers, etc.. Open source is a spark, but this spark doens't nessecarily power an engine of commerce. Rather the engine is the pride, the joy of accomplishment we humans have before we die. Sorta like the building of the pyramids: totally crazy, yet totally cool!
I know I speak to the choir here on
What gives whit the insta-broken links?
I mean, its one things to see a site get slash-dot'ed, but yet another to see a site gone the moment slashdot posts the link. What gives? Maybe that spam-canon's lawyer has more pull/push than we think.... I mean.. to get the site slashed before slashdot can... talk about power!!
no
Nope... sorry
THe R.I.A.A was created to protect the lyrics of song writers. What it became is another story. The reason I know so much about this is because I was once affiliated with the R.I.A.A when I tried to started a small record lable in Austin, Tx. I have argued about the R.I.A.A for many years now with all sorts of people. Lets just say I know what I'm talking about from first hand experience.
as I mentions in my post... the original intent was to protect the artists from other artists.
BTW- I have a box in my storage that has all the R.I.A.A papers from back in the day that they sent me. One document sticks out in my mind, basically a brochure describing the services and benifites the organization provides. They were clearly offering services that protects artists, and record lables, at a cost mind you.
The R.I.A.A was established to protect artists from other artist's. It was a sorta of safety net to protect the lyrics from being used by other artists in derivative works. The R.I.A.A was also a database of song lyrics, that could easily determine if your song was infringing on 'prior art'. It was a service for artists by artists, at least originally. The R.I.A.A sold itself to small upstart music labels, typically the really cool small labels that had limited funds to pay for lawyers. It was good for everyone since infringement issues were not the norm back then. You must realize that the big issue was artists taking the lyrics and making derivative works (aka covers songs, etc...)
Enter onto the scean digital samplers. Once Roland, EMU, Ensoniq, and other started selling good digital samplers for a reasonable price... A whole slew of copyright protection changed...as taking samples (aka perfect clones) of the actual original work was made supper easy. Its true that the artists could simply use the traditional analog technology to do the same, but with the emergence of electronic genre (aka disco, new wave, techno, industrial) the people doing the recordings were exposed to a new art... the manipulation of samples. Other factors are at play here too, but it was in this general time span things were starting to change (80's & 90's)
This new era brought with it an increase of non-lyric infringements, and the R.I.A.A database was not so effective. By this time the R.I.A.A had become a sort of insurance company, who would not only serve as a watch dog group for song writers, but as an entity who purpose was to protect the investments of the record labels, who were acting as middle men for the artists.
It is true that the record labels would typically purchase the rights to the songs from the artists in deals that were typically penned by the recording companies. In this way the R.I.A.A shifted from being an organization that protected the artist, to an organization that protected the rights of the record companies (who assumed the rights of the artists).
This is what got us in our present condition. The record companies think they are the artists... and in fact when a record company exec wants a new hit single... it is not an issue of recruiting a rising star, its about creating the next new hit.... by means of record-for-hire.... hence bands like Nsync, and the likes (no offence Nsync).
You see... the record companies don't have the time to wait for real artists to come up with a hit single... the creative process simple doesn't fit into the cash-revenue cycle. This cycle is out-pacing the creative juices of real artists...
So it is true that the Recording companies are paying for the production of new songs, paying for the lyrics used in those songs, and in general own the entire creative process in many situations, except those coming from the smaller recording companies, who typically represent the real artists.... However... this doesn't stop the recording companies from looking at them all the same. If they can own the entire recording process of their artist, why now have the same ownership rights of the art they acquire via the smaller record companies.
The issues can be quite sticky sometimes. The most common thing I see is a lack of understanding on how far reaching the recording company contracts really are. These things are in favor of the record company, and in turn the R.I.A.A must protect the record companies if they are going to feed the wallets of their highly paid lawyers.
The solution you ask... the best idea would be for the artists to create a coalition that they can directly interface with, and use to protect their lyrics, and their recordings directly. They also need a direct distribution system that pays them, and not the record companies. Online distribution would be good, but what ever that system might be would have to make use of encryption to protect the rights on the artists, and the artist would hold the encryption keys used to decipher the music, and your purchase of the medium would involve an exchange of keys. Obviously this is way too much work for an artist, who cannot be expected to be a crypto expert. Again, recording companies would step in and manage this for the artist... however.. They would probably want the right to the music. But what the artist don't seem to understand is they can still maintain the copy rights on the music while deferring the distribution rights to a 3rd party. It comes clear when you differentiate distribution rights from copyrights..... For example... I give you the right to be the only company to sell my song, but I still own my songs... you just have my permission to duplicate and distribute my works... and only on a limited basis at that.
From the persepective of mp3/ogg trading geeks... its seem to skip our the minds that the R.I.A.A once stood for something good. Despite the open nature of our software community (aka BSD license, and the GNU) the artist are in it for the plesure of writing songs first, and making money second. THe R.I.A.A and the FSF has something in common here.... they protect the rights, and recognition of the original artists. If you steal the lyrics of my songs, and don't at least give me blulb somewhere in the distro... I would sue you.... The FSF does the exact same.... Think about it.
Actually I'm thinking of way to justify the cash expence in purchasing one of these boards. I'm wondering how much faster this would increase the speed of my application as opposed to software based crypto? If I were to grab one of these boards... I wouldn't neccesarily want to use the Data Encipher Standard, but rather experiment with a new crypto system.
My only basis for mentioning Blowfish is because that is what I use in my application currently. This seems to be reasonably fast, but several folks have said that the cipher is not old enough for their taste.
You are correct. =)
Thanks for the insight.
Did you have something to say about IRC, or OPN... or did you just stop by to get your cheap rise? I already know the answer to the question, but I just want to hear a trolls answer... I'm sure your reply will contain all the normal moron character attacks... the reason you have nothing inteligent to say is because your an idiot....
Thanks for pointing out my typo's.... =)
yeah right...
=)
hehehe.....
Nobody takes you serriously, seeing how your comments just keep getting moderation points in the negative.
I think Sun Microsystems** takes BSD serriously, as well as HP considering both companies based their products on BSD. Not to mention the thousands of ISP's out there who are BSD based too, as this is FreeBSD main customer. I could go on, and on.... example after example...
Thanks for pointing out my typo's.... hehehe.
However, I don't see how your choice of topics has anything to do with IRC, or the OPN network?
Did you have anything inteligent to say, or were you just looking to get a jolly rise out of bashing on people ?
** = SunOS
I guess I'm the fool now.
hahaha
;-)
Uh no........
;)
Actually I'm a FreeBSD zelot, not a linux zelot.
but with your bitter attitude... I'd have no trouble banning you.
I think mark Twain said it best: "the whole world knows your a fool, but when you open your mount, you remove all doubt."
So go ahead, open your mouth, and confirm your foolishness some more. =)
BTW - irc.linux.com isx just one node in the OPN network. If your so ready to jump to conclusions based on things you dont' know... then I should have just said go to irc.openprojects.net, with no "linux" in the name.....
In case anyone doesn't know... this is the developer sanctuary. A place for developers to communicate without the weenies getting in the way.... well their are still weenies (this is irc ya know), but it is at least a more stable place. I've been using it to work on mod_mp3... stop by #mod_mp3 on irc.linux.com sometime.
Well then.... if Euro folks are so adimate to censor people, then why don't they just create a proxie, and firewall, for their people? This would shelter their citizens from all that evil free speech, and free expression. While thier at it, why not just physically remove the internet, and replace it with euro-net.... a fully contained intra-net for euro folks that is protected from the hate-mongers?
serriously folks, the most logical reason this amendment is being slipped in is because the USA court rulled that Frenchy anti-hate laws do not apply to USA based companies. I would not doubt it to find that a french person sponsored this addition into being. IT is too ironic that this slips in not even a week after the USA court rullings.
"I HATE YOU"
OOOO.. oh no... I said it.... now I'm going to be banned in Europe.... and slahsdot is going to be sued in a French court....... its a damn shame.
Go ahead... balkanize the internet.... the folks in the USA wiull simply go on with what we have always done... freely express ourselves. And the folks in Europ will still do what they always do... read USA internet sites.
As if anything is going to change by this.... it might lift the ego of some politician for a year or two. If Europe folks are so advanced, and enlightend then it would seem that they would be mature enough to simply not look at the hatefull items on the net....
Thanks for responding... I enjoy our talks... to bad we have to use slashdot as a medium......
BTW - my level of crypto knowledge could be considered novice... I only read the Applied Crypto book by Bruce, and I use Blowfish on my website. I know, I'm a lame nobody... but I love pumping your for info... thanks =)
I have a passing interest in keeping others out of my affairs, and if I could afford this IBM board... I'd use it on my server instead of using a software based cyrpto system.. like the mcrypt libs I use now. I sure wish this type of tech were marketed to the small fry, like myself.... if IBM were smart... they could capitalize on this press coverage to their advantage.
In environments where the system cannot be updated in the field (smart card operating systems, for example), secret systems are clearly more secure. In environments where the system can be patched immediately, openness is clearly more secure. In spaces in between, which covers most of the real world, the security situation is, well, in between.
It has been argued that security via obsurity is not really secure at all... just secret. Yet clearly obscurity is secure.... however... its biggest weakness is the obscurity.
Duh. I was thinking about.......
Yeah... I think IBM should use linux kernel for the board... why not... except the license will take the product hostage, yet at the same time protect IBM. A double edge sword.
Going back to the Obscurity aspect... I would argue that all systems should be treated as though they are insecure... and already broken... it tends to make security better. Forinstance, beaming a new key to a communications satalite, or two analog cell phones (radios) trading keys over the air-waves... These systems undergo the best scrutiny..... the enemy
Yet, that is not the issue at hand.... what he have here is buggy software kit. THe IBM board is still secure, and to my understanding the software is the only part that needs to be re-evaluated. I wonder if it would be possible to add Blowfish to the kit? YOu say you knwo the guys that work on this.... have they said anything about using non-DES (aka non-IBM and the goverment with their backdoors) type of ciphers??
BTW- I wanter if smart cards have a FIPS rating?
Dunno if the source will be published or not, but I think so.
Please read the GNU license... for the answer to your question. If IBM wanted to keep it secret... use a bsd derived kernel instead.
yupppers.... just look at the Dimitri S.. being prosecuted in the USA for crimes against the us law that he commited in his country.... thus... if any Yahoo execs ever fly to France, you had better watch out... cuz I'm sure these countries would love to play this ball game on US citizens.
So now what? The french goverment is going to do what.... have a pissing match with the US lawmakers?
a quote from the article
"Rosen and other leaders in the Web services industry shared their knowledge, experiences and visions for the future of the Internet at the informative sessions offered throughout the November 5-8 schedule....."
Excuse me? Since when... I mean since when was Hillary Rosen been considered a "leader" in the web services industry? Um... Hillary might be a leader of the RIAA, but the RIAA isn't considered a leader of technology, nor the internet.
Take this article with a grain of salt. It is short, and not very acurate. I'd say the author is a novice reporter, and must have been under the impression that if they report on a speech at a technical conference... it must be an important player in the internet industry. Too bad.
The RIAA is a good thing for small record lables...... they have a good sales pitch involving way to protect the assets of your artists... to the tune of if another music artist steals your lyrcs... you got protection... this is what the RIAA was built to do... protect song writers.... they are not a technology savy bunch... unless you think a cd-audio disc is high-tech.
If I were Nvidia, I'd try to buy-out Transmeta... I mean Tramsmeta has a dream team of chip designers. Nvidia seems to be in a very good position these days... as their company makes chips way more complex than an Intel P4. Since they recently entered into the AMD chip-set arena with the upcoming Nforce chipset... if stands to reason that Nvidia would be calculating its current holdings to leverage a buyout. This is purly theory on my part here, so don't go tell your mom'n'pop just yet. But lets continue to look at the situation... Nvidia took a chance on buying out 3Dfx when it had sealled the deal to make the game-consol. So now that its only competion is the Radion card, who knows...
You have to go to the link, and make sure to look at the large image near the bottom.
The image shows the 32bit pci bus only running at 33Mhz! I mean... I own a DIGITAL AlphaStation 4/233, and it has a 33Mhz. THis box is from 97.
Just guessing from what I saw on the page... the kit is a strange malgamation of old, and new technology. The system has 133Mhz, btw nothing new for Alpha, for the memory bus, but not the pci bus.
So... its is 64 bits.... but it isn't that special either.