"Ross Anderson, author of 'Security Enginnering', notifies in a message to comp.risks that he just got permission from Wiley to let anyone download the full content of his book for free. This is one of the best books on computer security and it is used as textbook in many University courses (I teach two of them)."
Pff. If the author of one of the best books on computer security can't even spell "engineering"---in the title of his book---then we need some better books!
I don't have a solution, but as a collective intellegence, we should be able to come up with a non-commerical standard of encrypting files that ties the unencryption to the user not to the device.
No, that is simply beyond the reach of modern Physics and Neuroscience. Cryptography is not a panacea. Do a little research into secure Internet voting if you want to see another example of a problem that cryptography cannot solve absolutely (it's a trade-off between various desirable properties).
That's the entire problem with DRM. DRM technology cannot accomplish its goals, and it comes with a huge pile of related problems.
Right, and I don't even think he suggests that anymore. He wrote that back in the days when computers were still largely funded by government grants, there wasn't that much software around, and the Internet explosion hadn't happened yet. It wasn't really all that unreasonable, given the circumstances at the time.
More likely, if all copyright on music is removed, the vast majority of music would only be available on the 'Net,
Uh huh. Because according to you there is no incentive for businesses to provide tangible forms of works that can be downloaded for free on the Internet.
Assuming you are correct, how does DRM change any of this? Keep in mind that content 'protected' by DRM (even with "Trusted Computing") will always be available anyway, since preventing all copying of data will never be possible.
No one is arguing "that [DRM is] unnecessary to protect the works of content creators."
I am. We still have copyright law, after all. Ultimately, that's why the content creators are still making money, even though every DRM system in widespread use has been broken (or fixed, depending on your point of view) to date.
I have yet to see an argument that DRM is necessary that is grounded firmly on evidence, rather than speculation. From what I've seen, the evidence suggests that DRM is unnecessary.
I believe he was emphasizing an aspect of GUIs not classifying them. If you think otherwise, please enlighten me with a list of non-metaphoric GUIs.
Forget I wrote anything. I've read your other posts on this topic, and I am convinced that you are not actually interested in discussing user interfaces; Instead, you are preoccupied with telling everyone how much you think you know about what radarsat1 meant, even though he has already told you otherwise, and others have understood him. What do you hope to accomplish?
Did you read the link I posted? Did you think about what it says? On second thought, don't answer that question; I have no reason to believe your answer in any case.
I'm sure that by now, you're thinking of posting some drivel about how this post is "an ad hominem attack". Remember folks, ad hominem is an assertion that "X is true because Joe is an idiot". I'm making no such assertion; I'm not rebuking Closed Source in order to establish any point about user interfaces---others have done that well enough through sound reasoning and argumentation. Rather, I'm just tired of old men who have the maturity of 16-year-olds and egos the size of Zeppelins polluting a public forum that, at one time, was a place where useful discussion could actually occur.
Re:It's like nothing we've seen .. since Linux
on
A New Kind of OS
·
· Score: 1
I just get tired of people suggesting that computer programming should be effortless. Computer using should be easy, but programming is programming, if you know what I mean.
Yeah, I don't get it. If somebody said "I want the power of perl-compatible regular expressions without typing code", we'd laugh, but somehow if they say "I want the power of PERL without typing code", we pretend that it's even remotely feasible.
On the contrary, I'm pretty sure that religion allows debate. Granted, there are tenets in a given religion which are to be adhered to, but people are allowed to ask questions. The exact "rules" as it is seem to be very open to debate and actually rather vague in some cases.
It depends on the religion, but my experience has always been that religion allows "debate", but not real debate; It allows "questions" but not questions that lead to actual answers.
My understanding is that in common English, "or" is the inclusive variety. That's why the logical operation for inclusive OR isn't called something like "IOR."
In a lot of contexts, "or" is exclusive, and "and/or" is inclusive. In other contexts, you would be correct.
If they feel that they have to trademark a word "MaxFPS(tm)" that provides absolutely no information about what it does, rather than just say "Network Process Offloading" be warry.
Indeed. The fact that it's a trademark means that it provides no information about what it does. It's like Microsoft's PlaysForSure(TM). If you sue them complaining that it does not, in fact, play for sure, they will just turn around and say "We never claimed it does; That's just our trademark".
Since when is mailbombing spamming? It's just a simple denial-of-service attack on a particular organization's email system.
But I suppose I shouldn't expect more accuracy than "GOOD" and "BAD" from Slashdot (<rant>or the MPAA. WTF is with the whole "Downloading pirated movies is STEALING!!!!!111!!!!1!1" thing?</rant>)
Read the writings of Margaret Sanger, the creater of Planned Parenthood and the pro-choice movement, sometime. The whole idea was to encourage poor people to stop reproducing- eugenics.
That's a red herring; What does it matter what Margaret Sanger thinks?
Slashdot Mirror
Pff. If the author of one of the best books on computer security can't even spell "engineering"---in the title of his book---then we need some better books!
Ah. 'No one is arguing that protecting the works of content creators is unnecessary.' Never mind then. :)
No, that is simply beyond the reach of modern Physics and Neuroscience. Cryptography is not a panacea. Do a little research into secure Internet voting if you want to see another example of a problem that cryptography cannot solve absolutely (it's a trade-off between various desirable properties).
That's the entire problem with DRM. DRM technology cannot accomplish its goals, and it comes with a huge pile of related problems.
Right, and I don't even think he suggests that anymore. He wrote that back in the days when computers were still largely funded by government grants, there wasn't that much software around, and the Internet explosion hadn't happened yet. It wasn't really all that unreasonable, given the circumstances at the time.
Uh huh. Because according to you there is no incentive for businesses to provide tangible forms of works that can be downloaded for free on the Internet.
</sarcasm>
Assuming you are correct, how does DRM change any of this? Keep in mind that content 'protected' by DRM (even with "Trusted Computing") will always be available anyway, since preventing all copying of data will never be possible.
I am. We still have copyright law, after all. Ultimately, that's why the content creators are still making money, even though every DRM system in widespread use has been broken (or fixed, depending on your point of view) to date.
I have yet to see an argument that DRM is necessary that is grounded firmly on evidence, rather than speculation. From what I've seen, the evidence suggests that DRM is unnecessary.
. . . or any advertiser.
Here is a direct link to the .flv file, if you want to archive it in case it mysteriously disappears from YouTube.
Professional engineers usually have a legal requirement to put public safety before obligations to employers and whatnot.
Forget I wrote anything. I've read your other posts on this topic, and I am convinced that you are not actually interested in discussing user interfaces; Instead, you are preoccupied with telling everyone how much you think you know about what radarsat1 meant, even though he has already told you otherwise, and others have understood him. What do you hope to accomplish?
Did you read the link I posted? Did you think about what it says? On second thought, don't answer that question; I have no reason to believe your answer in any case.
I'm sure that by now, you're thinking of posting some drivel about how this post is "an ad hominem attack". Remember folks, ad hominem is an assertion that "X is true because Joe is an idiot". I'm making no such assertion; I'm not rebuking Closed Source in order to establish any point about user interfaces---others have done that well enough through sound reasoning and argumentation. Rather, I'm just tired of old men who have the maturity of 16-year-olds and egos the size of Zeppelins polluting a public forum that, at one time, was a place where useful discussion could actually occur.
Yeah, I don't get it. If somebody said "I want the power of perl-compatible regular expressions without typing code", we'd laugh, but somehow if they say "I want the power of PERL without typing code", we pretend that it's even remotely feasible.
Right. The simplest metaphoric GUI. The problem is with bad metaphors, and the fact that many popular GUIs are riddled with them.
Yes, because it's sooo much better when a few hundred people could strip the rights of, say, gays or Jews or Muslims without a second thought...
So "D.E.B. 3" is a beta of Debian 4?
Maybe most of them just don't care one way or the other.
It depends on the religion, but my experience has always been that religion allows "debate", but not real debate; It allows "questions" but not questions that lead to actual answers.
What is CVC?
In a lot of contexts, "or" is exclusive, and "and/or" is inclusive. In other contexts, you would be correct.
English is a mess.
Indeed. The fact that it's a trademark means that it provides no information about what it does. It's like Microsoft's PlaysForSure(TM). If you sue them complaining that it does not, in fact, play for sure, they will just turn around and say "We never claimed it does; That's just our trademark".
Since when is mailbombing spamming? It's just a simple denial-of-service attack on a particular organization's email system.
But I suppose I shouldn't expect more accuracy than "GOOD" and "BAD" from Slashdot (<rant>or the MPAA. WTF is with the whole "Downloading pirated movies is STEALING!!!!!111!!!!1!1" thing?</rant>)
Just what overweight America needs...more men with breasts.
That's a red herring; What does it matter what Margaret Sanger thinks?
Why should we let the facts get in the way of our zealotry?
You shouldn't be drinking if you're pregnant!