we have this basic problem of incarcerating someone for a crime they MIGHT commit, which, most folks find unfair.
Yet nobody finds it unfair that we have lists of people who have to announce their crimes to their neighbours, who are barred from living or working in certain areas, and who have to now walk around with a bracelet on that starts beeping whenever they get "too close" to designated buildings? It has gotten to the point where sex offenders are actually forced to live under a bridge in some areas:
Well, maybe we need to reconsider some of the other things we throw people in prison for. If it has gotten to the point where we have so many people in prison that we are forced to release (presumably) dangerous people, we are definitely doing something wrong.
I would think however that part of the PS3 is not an effective measure since it is not an good implementation of de ecDSA algoritm
This is not true; the implementation of ECDSA verification on the PS3 appears to be completely correct. The screw up was internal at Sony; it looks like someone just made the easy mistake of confusing a unique, random, secret number with a part of the private key. What I cannot understand is why Sony didn't use the OpenSSL or NSS implementations of ECDSA, which have been reviewed, tested, and attacked by professionals.
Your confusion seems to arise from the fact that you believe that you own your computer; Sony clearly believes otherwise. Your PS3 is still theirs, in their world view, just like your laptop became theirs the moment you decided to play their music CD. You engage in unauthorized PS3 access by using it in a manner they do not like -- you know, on in which they are not making money.
What's that? The law is supposed to protect citizens from this? Oops, we don't like in the 18th century anymore, this is the 21st century, where we have a long legal tradition of laws that ensure that big businesses remain big and profitable.
I really do hope that Geohot wins this case, I just won't be holding my breath.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you have some kind of legal right to reverse engineering the things that you buy, then tell the whole world about it. You do not have such a right in the USA, because we have the DMCA, which makes it illegal to tell the whole world about it. Sure, you can reverse engineer your PS3, in the comfort and privacy of your home, and then use it to do whatever you want...but if you dare tell anyone else what you did, you are breaking the law.
He implemented a method of running code on the system that Sony does not want you to run -- effectively, defeating the restriction technology that the DMCA provides legal protection for. He might as well have published a way to run unsigned code, in terms of the effect, and I guarantee you that no judge is in this country will differentiate between the two.
...except that Geohot's original hack used OtherOS, and was an attempt to defeat the restriction system that prevented OtherOS from accessing all of the system's hardware.
I'm happy with them requiring official games to be signed too to at least give us a few years with no fscking wallhackers etc. I'm not sure there was too much point blocking off the 3D though.
Do you really think that digital signing has anything to do with the gaming experience? It is just a way for Sony to recoup their loss on each console sale; the reason they locked down OtherOS so hard was to ensure that nobody could develop games without having to pay Sony for the privilege (i.e. to block homebrew). The restriction technology in the PS3 has always had exactly one purpose: increasing Sony's profits.
At the same time, though, publishers are desperate to find a way to kill the used book market, which is an even bigger threat to their bottom lines. You see the worst sorts of tactics to kill used book sales in the textbook market -- publishers often release a new edition of a textbook with little more than the order of the practice problems changed. Publishers love the idea of DRM because it allows them to kill used book sales; of course, they are in for a hard dose of reality when they finally learn that these restriction technologies were doomed from the start.
Not drugs as a whole; more like, particular drugs or particular styles of drugs. Belladonna was once a popular drug; not so much anymore. People used to take their cocaine through an IV.
The early days of Facebook were not even close to the beginning of social networking; the end of Facebook would not mean the end of social networking.
You do realize every major illegal narcotic comes from "a plant", right? Cocaine is from coca leaf, heroin is from opium.
Despite the idiotic labels given to it by American laws, cocaine is not a narcotic. Narcotics refer to a specific class of drugs, which does not and has never included cocaine.
Are you suggesting that all of these drugs be made legally available to anyone that wants them without even as much as a license?
GP might not have been, but I certainly am. What finally did it for me when it came to cocaine and opium legalization was when I took a moment to review the reasons why these drugs were made illegal in the first place. Cocaine was made illegal when southern cops started saying that black men who used cocaine became more accurate with pistols, more difficult to gun down, and more likely to rape white women. Opium was made illegal when congressmen were told that Asian immigrants were bringing their bad habits with them.
Oh, yeah, and marijuana was made illegal when congressmen were told that white women who smoked marijuana would want to have sex with black men and that marijuana fueled jazz music.
At one time, you could buy these drugs without a prescription or a license. Society did not crumble; in fact, American society underwent one of its greatest periods of growth, including the industrial revolution, during the time when these drugs were legal. Why should we be afraid of decriminalization or legalization of any of these drugs?
Don't forget racism, there was a lot of that in the drug prohibition movement. It is a matter of public record that congressmen were being told that marijuana would cause white women to want to have sex with black men. It is a matter of public record that congressmen were told that marijuana fueled jazz music. Go back two decades, and you find that the New York Times published an article claiming that black men who used cocaine became unstoppable forces -- that even shooting one in the heart was not sufficient to stop him. Cocaine, the public was told, caused black men to want to rape white women.
Not that anyone really cares why these drugs were banned in the first place.
So, in prohibitionist America, not only can people wind up in psych wards because they use recreational drugs, but we also wind up with a larger prison population than China by arresting millions of drug users who do not wind up in the hospital as a result. Sorry, but I do not really follow your logic here; I would rather live in a country where people were free to put themselves in a psychiatric hospital by abusing drugs than one in which people who are perfectly sane are sent to prison for the crime of possessing drugs.
There might be some issues with international ports and armed vessels. Not every country will be happy to have an armed ship sail into its waters, even if the ship claims to be armed for protection against pirates. This is even more true if the ship is armed with weapons that can sink other vessels.
That being said, I don't think arming ships would be a terrible idea for any other reason, as long as there are international agreements in place to punish captains/crews that use their weapons offensively.
Frankly, a laser detector wouldn't be necessary; you would really just need a way to measure the intensity of the beam, and a way to rotate the sensor (and weapon), the rest just becomes control systems work. You might need a bit of (optical) filtering, just to reduce the intensity of the laser light to more manageable levels, but that should not be too difficult (you do not, after all, need to be able to actually see anything other than the laser).
A technological arms race with pirates should be interesting to watch...
That would never work with email, or IRC or even instant messaging.
Uh...what? Your use case sounds like a perfect example of how to use a chatroom -- real time updates about a situation. That is exactly how I see LUG channels and 2600 channels being used.
What about...email? You know, email is a good way to send pictures and updates about your life to your friends and family, and the best part is, you have total control over who gets to read it -- no complex privacy settings needed. Sure, your friends might get annoyed with you sending them one inane update about your life after another...but maybe that is an indication of how interested they are in what you have been posting on Facebook.
Well, I guess if by "popular" you mean to include non-computer users, you are correct. On the other hand, there was once a time when people used their real names on Usenet (in fact, some still do), and people would meet each other using Usenet.
Well, I was replying to a post that said it was unfathomable for Facebook to die, because of how many users it has. My point is that, in fact, it is not unfathomable, because Facebook everything that Facebook does is either redundant or useless, in terms of what people need. All of the industries you named have prominent examples of companies and styles that have go under because people just stopped being interested or because their product or style was not fashionable anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
525 children in total...when 800000 are reported missing each year? I think this program is going to need more than Facebook...
we are somewhat polygynous in our actual behavior. This requires getting a large number of males either killed, or out of the dating pool.
Or we need to acknowledge that women are promiscuous also; humans are not gorillas.
We're halfway there:
http://www.aclufl.org/tuttle/
we have this basic problem of incarcerating someone for a crime they MIGHT commit, which, most folks find unfair.
Yet nobody finds it unfair that we have lists of people who have to announce their crimes to their neighbours, who are barred from living or working in certain areas, and who have to now walk around with a bracelet on that starts beeping whenever they get "too close" to designated buildings? It has gotten to the point where sex offenders are actually forced to live under a bridge in some areas:
http://www.aclufl.org/tuttle/
If this is not considered unfair, then why should a prison sentence be considered unfair?
Well, maybe we need to reconsider some of the other things we throw people in prison for. If it has gotten to the point where we have so many people in prison that we are forced to release (presumably) dangerous people, we are definitely doing something wrong.
If they are so dangerous...why are they not kept in prison for the protection of society? Last I checked, that was part of the whole "prison concept."
I would think however that part of the PS3 is not an effective measure since it is not an good implementation of de ecDSA algoritm
This is not true; the implementation of ECDSA verification on the PS3 appears to be completely correct. The screw up was internal at Sony; it looks like someone just made the easy mistake of confusing a unique, random, secret number with a part of the private key. What I cannot understand is why Sony didn't use the OpenSSL or NSS implementations of ECDSA, which have been reviewed, tested, and attacked by professionals.
Your confusion seems to arise from the fact that you believe that you own your computer; Sony clearly believes otherwise. Your PS3 is still theirs, in their world view, just like your laptop became theirs the moment you decided to play their music CD. You engage in unauthorized PS3 access by using it in a manner they do not like -- you know, on in which they are not making money.
What's that? The law is supposed to protect citizens from this? Oops, we don't like in the 18th century anymore, this is the 21st century, where we have a long legal tradition of laws that ensure that big businesses remain big and profitable.
I really do hope that Geohot wins this case, I just won't be holding my breath.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you have some kind of legal right to reverse engineering the things that you buy, then tell the whole world about it. You do not have such a right in the USA, because we have the DMCA, which makes it illegal to tell the whole world about it. Sure, you can reverse engineer your PS3, in the comfort and privacy of your home, and then use it to do whatever you want...but if you dare tell anyone else what you did, you are breaking the law.
He implemented a method of running code on the system that Sony does not want you to run -- effectively, defeating the restriction technology that the DMCA provides legal protection for. He might as well have published a way to run unsigned code, in terms of the effect, and I guarantee you that no judge is in this country will differentiate between the two.
...except that Geohot's original hack used OtherOS, and was an attempt to defeat the restriction system that prevented OtherOS from accessing all of the system's hardware.
I'm happy with them requiring official games to be signed too to at least give us a few years with no fscking wallhackers etc. I'm not sure there was too much point blocking off the 3D though.
Do you really think that digital signing has anything to do with the gaming experience? It is just a way for Sony to recoup their loss on each console sale; the reason they locked down OtherOS so hard was to ensure that nobody could develop games without having to pay Sony for the privilege (i.e. to block homebrew). The restriction technology in the PS3 has always had exactly one purpose: increasing Sony's profits.
At the same time, though, publishers are desperate to find a way to kill the used book market, which is an even bigger threat to their bottom lines. You see the worst sorts of tactics to kill used book sales in the textbook market -- publishers often release a new edition of a textbook with little more than the order of the practice problems changed. Publishers love the idea of DRM because it allows them to kill used book sales; of course, they are in for a hard dose of reality when they finally learn that these restriction technologies were doomed from the start.
Not drugs as a whole; more like, particular drugs or particular styles of drugs. Belladonna was once a popular drug; not so much anymore. People used to take their cocaine through an IV.
The early days of Facebook were not even close to the beginning of social networking; the end of Facebook would not mean the end of social networking.
You do realize every major illegal narcotic comes from "a plant", right? Cocaine is from coca leaf, heroin is from opium.
Despite the idiotic labels given to it by American laws, cocaine is not a narcotic. Narcotics refer to a specific class of drugs, which does not and has never included cocaine.
Are you suggesting that all of these drugs be made legally available to anyone that wants them without even as much as a license?
GP might not have been, but I certainly am. What finally did it for me when it came to cocaine and opium legalization was when I took a moment to review the reasons why these drugs were made illegal in the first place. Cocaine was made illegal when southern cops started saying that black men who used cocaine became more accurate with pistols, more difficult to gun down, and more likely to rape white women. Opium was made illegal when congressmen were told that Asian immigrants were bringing their bad habits with them.
Oh, yeah, and marijuana was made illegal when congressmen were told that white women who smoked marijuana would want to have sex with black men and that marijuana fueled jazz music.
At one time, you could buy these drugs without a prescription or a license. Society did not crumble; in fact, American society underwent one of its greatest periods of growth, including the industrial revolution, during the time when these drugs were legal. Why should we be afraid of decriminalization or legalization of any of these drugs?
Don't forget racism, there was a lot of that in the drug prohibition movement. It is a matter of public record that congressmen were being told that marijuana would cause white women to want to have sex with black men. It is a matter of public record that congressmen were told that marijuana fueled jazz music. Go back two decades, and you find that the New York Times published an article claiming that black men who used cocaine became unstoppable forces -- that even shooting one in the heart was not sufficient to stop him. Cocaine, the public was told, caused black men to want to rape white women.
Not that anyone really cares why these drugs were banned in the first place.
So, in prohibitionist America, not only can people wind up in psych wards because they use recreational drugs, but we also wind up with a larger prison population than China by arresting millions of drug users who do not wind up in the hospital as a result. Sorry, but I do not really follow your logic here; I would rather live in a country where people were free to put themselves in a psychiatric hospital by abusing drugs than one in which people who are perfectly sane are sent to prison for the crime of possessing drugs.
There might be some issues with international ports and armed vessels. Not every country will be happy to have an armed ship sail into its waters, even if the ship claims to be armed for protection against pirates. This is even more true if the ship is armed with weapons that can sink other vessels.
That being said, I don't think arming ships would be a terrible idea for any other reason, as long as there are international agreements in place to punish captains/crews that use their weapons offensively.
Frankly, a laser detector wouldn't be necessary; you would really just need a way to measure the intensity of the beam, and a way to rotate the sensor (and weapon), the rest just becomes control systems work. You might need a bit of (optical) filtering, just to reduce the intensity of the laser light to more manageable levels, but that should not be too difficult (you do not, after all, need to be able to actually see anything other than the laser).
A technological arms race with pirates should be interesting to watch...
Yes, how could we ever expect aunts, uncles, and grandparents to use email, which only those weirdo unix geeks are using?
which one runs/can be used straight from Android/iOS without the need of a computer of any kind...
Except the one running Android or iOS, and of course the program itself. Software does not run on aether, you know.
That would never work with email, or IRC or even instant messaging.
Uh...what? Your use case sounds like a perfect example of how to use a chatroom -- real time updates about a situation. That is exactly how I see LUG channels and 2600 channels being used.
What about...email? You know, email is a good way to send pictures and updates about your life to your friends and family, and the best part is, you have total control over who gets to read it -- no complex privacy settings needed. Sure, your friends might get annoyed with you sending them one inane update about your life after another...but maybe that is an indication of how interested they are in what you have been posting on Facebook.
Well, I guess if by "popular" you mean to include non-computer users, you are correct. On the other hand, there was once a time when people used their real names on Usenet (in fact, some still do), and people would meet each other using Usenet.
Well, I was replying to a post that said it was unfathomable for Facebook to die, because of how many users it has. My point is that, in fact, it is not unfathomable, because Facebook everything that Facebook does is either redundant or useless, in terms of what people need. All of the industries you named have prominent examples of companies and styles that have go under because people just stopped being interested or because their product or style was not fashionable anymore.