Intel doesn't have Dual Core

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ed
  • Start date Start date
Seems I'm not alone - eh?

Software in silicon is a big mushy area, and I'm not sure I understand
it all. If they *did* use iptables, does that make the verilog (or
whatever) a derived work? I think it does.
I think you''re going to see more of this
reluctance to release public detailed specs - there's always been some
motivation to protect IP from the copyists; now you also have to protect
yourself from the patent hi-jackers.

Where is that patent that might be hijacked? What I think they're
really worried about is the public finding out just how little there
is to the secret sauce.
Scientific conferences are also
suffering from this phenomenon - nobody wants to present their work
anymore.

Scientists never really wanted to share. That's not new. It's a
competitive business.

RM
 
Robert Myers said:
Software in silicon is a big mushy area, and I'm not sure I understand
it all. If they *did* use iptables, does that make the verilog (or
whatever) a derived work? I think it does.


Where is that patent that might be hijacked? What I think they're
really worried about is the public finding out just how little there
is to the secret sauce.


Scientists never really wanted to share. That's not new. It's a
competitive business.

RM
In the US one has a year after disclosure to file the patent. In EU and
some other places, disclosure precludes filing.

Writing a paper or making a conference presentation is a lot of work. So of
course folks don't want to do it unless there is some benefit to them
personally. This benefit could be as little as peer recognition or a trip
to a nice locale, or as great as the career advancment necessity of the
academic track, but it has to be there. If one is employed and one's
employer in indifferent to the publication process then why bother?

del cecchi
 
I look at it from the point of view that Bittorent is a tool, anytime
someone has a method of reducing your ability to use that tool in my book
is bad. I wish more people would use Bittorent to cut costs, and welcome
any Distro for using it.

The people reducing the ability to use Bittorent as a tool are those
using it to illegally distribute copyrighted material. The RIAA and
MPAA have every reason to be opposed to that as it is straight-up
illegal. While I often disagree with the methods they use to fight
such crimes and I absolutely refuse to buy some of their "copy
protected" CDs, there's absolutely no argument anyone can make to say
that they shouldn't be trying to prevent this copyright infringement.
I thought Slashdot did a good job of bringing
out the fears of people in the threads, no need to go over that, I just
said it was possible. I think my worries are justified, by looking at
this article.
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/23341.htm

You're worries are only justified here if you're illegally
distributing (or in this case, selling) copyrighted material to which
you do not have a license.
 
If the means for that legal exploitation of the resource is being polluted
by ??AA-police zealots, I think there is a point here.

The technology would not do anything at all to pollute the legal
distribution as it's designed to target specific files specified by
the owners. Unless the RIAA are going to try and claim that they
*OWN* Mandrake's software and therefore can prevent people from making
copies of this, there would be no pollution at all.
Is the ??AA use of the resource legal? It's certainly unethical - no less
so than virus distribution, or 800- number abuse. Because they are looking
at the wrong end of the horse when considering the future distribution of
their product, it makes it OK for them to infest our (paid-for) space with
their misguided crap? No I don't think you meant that but there is an
issue here... on who the bandits are.

The copy that designed this technology is VERY tight-lipped about just
how it works, but my reading of it is that it's requires some input
from the original author when the media is first created, ie there is
extra data on the actual CDs you buy. To quote from the linked
article from The Inquirer:

"The company says it has developed digital rights protection software
that can be incorporated into digital movie, music or software
releases and set to play havoc with P2P networks on which releases may
appear."


The companies website is VERY light on technical details though (ie
there are none), and I suspect that it's really 99% marketing hype
anyway. Seems no different then the myriad of other companies
producing copy-protection crap that does nothing to prevent illegal
distribution of music while causing legal owners of such material
major pains in their butts. As mentioned previously, I still refuse
to purchase any CD that has copy protection built in due to all the
problems they cause (ie they won't usually play on computers, where I
listen to most of my music, often won't play in car CD/MP3 players
which I plan to buy and won't allow you to make a backup copy for
personal use, ie one to leave in my car so the original won't be
damaged).
 
Software in silicon is a big mushy area, and I'm not sure I understand
it all. If they *did* use iptables, does that make the verilog (or
whatever) a derived work? I think it does.

Very worrying all this stuff about "free" doo-hickeys.:-)
Where is that patent that might be hijacked? What I think they're
really worried about is the public finding out just how little there
is to the secret sauce.

You only have to look at what's going on. Here's one:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA526838.html. PCI
Express is an "open" standard with a .org and nominal (for a corp) fees for
membership to share err, "technology". Based on their Jedec chicanery and
results, I imagine they're going to be better equipped here to defend their
umm, behavior. I've mentioned a couple of times here that RMBS seemed to
be girding up to hi-jack PCI Express - the company is a nest of legal
vultures... the evidence is clear. You don't have to be a genius to figure
out the agendum - just wait for the infringement claims: "oh you can't use
a register here or a count-down timer there - that's our IP".

As for being "worried" just look at how VIA got harried, hounded and
mauled... shortly before they quit making their Data Sheets freely
available. Is it right? I dunno but having a license which limits clock
speed ramps seems kinda nutty to me. Has anybody got a patent on the
decimal number system yet?.... hmmmm.
Scientists never really wanted to share. That's not new. It's a
competitive business.

It *is* getting worse. There are ways to present say, an algorithm without
revealing "how to do it" and compromise your ability to profit in some way
from your work. You only have to look at the conference attendance and
program schedules compared with a few years ago.
 
The technology would not do anything at all to pollute the legal
distribution as it's designed to target specific files specified by
the owners. Unless the RIAA are going to try and claim that they
*OWN* Mandrake's software and therefore can prevent people from making
copies of this, there would be no pollution at all.

That assumes that ??AA would use it as described... on their pieces of
plastic, which would of course shift responsibility for the pollution. The
fact that they are already polluting the system with crap tends to indicate
to me that they will likely use it as a tool directly on the networks.
The copy that designed this technology is VERY tight-lipped about just
how it works, but my reading of it is that it's requires some input
from the original author when the media is first created, ie there is
extra data on the actual CDs you buy. To quote from the linked
article from The Inquirer:

"The company says it has developed digital rights protection software
that can be incorporated into digital movie, music or software
releases and set to play havoc with P2P networks on which releases may
appear."


The companies website is VERY light on technical details though (ie
there are none), and I suspect that it's really 99% marketing hype
anyway. Seems no different then the myriad of other companies
producing copy-protection crap that does nothing to prevent illegal
distribution of music while causing legal owners of such material
major pains in their butts.

There has to be an answer to all this copy confontation, though I have to
admit I don't see it myself yet but then I'm no expert in encryption. Then
again, the MPAA et.al. seem to have employed the wrong "experts" when they
came up with CSS, which is not a cipher at all - what a blunder.

There is also apparently a positive side to the P2P "illegal" copying,
where it has actually increased sales of disks... and books, as mentioned
here: http://janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html - well worth the
read. It's also worth quoting a sentence from that site: "Again, from
personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+
albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that
didn't show I owed them money."
As mentioned previously, I still refuse
to purchase any CD that has copy protection built in due to all the
problems they cause (ie they won't usually play on computers, where I
listen to most of my music, often won't play in car CD/MP3 players
which I plan to buy and won't allow you to make a backup copy for
personal use, ie one to leave in my car so the original won't be
damaged).

That's a hazy area - AIUI there are countries where they are not obliged to
label their copy-protected disks as "non-archivable". If not enough people
know or care about copy-protected Audio CDs it just won't matter anyway -
that's a number which is not clear to me right now. It *is* worrying that
they have managed to get the media to regurgitate the idea that the sales
are down because of copying... when in fact, IMO, the real reason is that
the content is crap.:-)
 
Tony said:
As mentioned previously, I still refuse
to purchase any CD that has copy protection built in due to all the
problems they cause

How do you tell, before you buy?
 
chrisv said:
Tony Hill wrote:




How do you tell, before you buy?

I don't know about Tony, but I simply ask the clerk at the store
to demonstrate for me on one of their computers that the CD is
playable on a PC. Music stores are usually happy to oblige, but
employees at a place like Walmart won't.

I have *no* stand-alone CD player at home. Any CD I buy *must*
be playable in the DVD burner in my computer.
 
: Tony Hill wrote:
:
:: As mentioned previously, I still refuse
:: to purchase any CD that has copy protection built in due to all the
:: problems they cause
:
: How do you tell, before you buy?

Hey Chris. At least here in Europe, any CD carrying any sort of copy
protection has to have a little sticker attached to the face of the case.
Example: About a year ago I bought The Beatles "Let It Be....Naked." On
the bottom right corner was a sticker that said, "Copy Controlled. See
reverse for details." On the back of the CD were some bullshit symbols
telling you what devices (computers, home stereos, etc.) the CD may or may
not work with. I say BS because this CD simply would not work in my
computer or my car CD player, but that's another story.

To be honest I didn't notice the sticker until after I got home and
examined the CD closer. I was doubly pissed off to find out that it
wouldn't play nice in either my computer or automobile, so I whipped out
my copy of EAC (Exact Audio Copy), ran a manual "Detect TOC", ripped the
tracks to my HD, and then built a new audio CD sans BS c**k-sucking copy
protection. Now the CD works great! To further punish the EMI and the
distributors that insist on making life difficult for the "simple man", I
returned the CD for a friggin refund. No, I'm not a pirate in the true
"spirit" of the word, but man, enough is enough!!

j.
 
The people reducing the ability to use Bittorent as a tool are those
using it to illegally distribute copyrighted material. The RIAA and
MPAA have every reason to be opposed to that as it is straight-up
illegal. While I often disagree with the methods they use to fight
such crimes and I absolutely refuse to buy some of their "copy
protected" CDs, there's absolutely no argument anyone can make to say
that they shouldn't be trying to prevent this copyright infringement.


You're worries are only justified here if you're illegally
distributing (or in this case, selling) copyrighted material to which
you do not have a license.

My take on the article is not the fact that the **AA have the right to go
after copyright infringement, but the fact they paid someone after the
fact. It comes down to illegal activities, the cops took a bribe.

from the **AA point of view they would love to ban all distributing
methods, that by pass them, as well as fair rights use. Just look over
the battle of PVR, DVR's, Tivo's and fast forwarding. Say I record a TV
show and take out all the commercials, then I want to share that with my
buddies, why should I not be allowed to do that? Or say I make a backup of
a DVD and a friend wants to borrow it, according to your definition of
distribution this would be illegal.

As one who uses Usenet I thought the free exchange of ideals and
information would be something worth protecting. We should try to break
down barriers of entrance, not build them up.

This could all become moot anyway as video blogs start to become more of a
presence, as well as Internet TV shows. The more the net is used for such
methods the bigger the change will happen, as others have stated if it is
a problem here, it will be developed some where else. As far as I am
concerned as long as they makes huge profits year after year, how has this
illegal distribution hurt them? Where is the loss that is effecting their
business?

Gnu_Raiz
 
: Tony Hill wrote:
:
:: As mentioned previously, I still refuse
:: to purchase any CD that has copy protection built in due to all the
:: problems they cause
:
: How do you tell, before you buy?

Hey Chris. At least here in Europe, any CD carrying any sort of copy
protection has to have a little sticker attached to the face of the case.
Example: About a year ago I bought The Beatles "Let It Be....Naked." On
the bottom right corner was a sticker that said, "Copy Controlled. See
reverse for details." On the back of the CD were some bullshit symbols
telling you what devices (computers, home stereos, etc.) the CD may or may
not work with. I say BS because this CD simply would not work in my
computer or my car CD player, but that's another story.

To be honest I didn't notice the sticker until after I got home and
examined the CD closer. I was doubly pissed off to find out that it
wouldn't play nice in either my computer or automobile, so I whipped out
my copy of EAC (Exact Audio Copy), ran a manual "Detect TOC", ripped the
tracks to my HD, and then built a new audio CD sans BS c**k-sucking copy
protection. Now the CD works great! To further punish the EMI and the
distributors that insist on making life difficult for the "simple man", I
returned the CD for a friggin refund. No, I'm not a pirate in the true
"spirit" of the word, but man, enough is enough!!

From what I hear the EC is working on their very own version of our DMCA...
after which EAC will become an illegal product there. Going by their past
record, I expect their DMCA to be even more onerous than what we have. I
also hear that one of the people (a French? MEP?) who is a principle
sponsor of this legislation is married to a high executive of one of the
large recording & music distribtion companies.
 
Software in silicon is a big mushy area, and I'm not sure I understand
it all. If they *did* use iptables, does that make the verilog (or
whatever) a derived work? I think it does.

I wasn't suggesting that one build other's IP into hardware as a way to
skirt the law, rather build enough IP into the silicon that giving away
the software is a smart move. If someone wants to support your hardware,
fine.
 
Huh? Why bother with a $100+ Opteron embedded chip when a $2 ARM chip
will do just as well with a fraction of the power consumption? There
really isn't much processor required for most of these firewalls, you
could probably even pull it off without too much trouble on a 16-bit
microcontroller, though a 32-bit one might be preferable. Probably
all you would need could be handled through ucLinux, so software and
development time shouldn't take too much. Something like QNX is
probably overkill (cost wise at least) for such a setup.

Here is some straightforward evidence to add to the debate. As a
direct result of this thread, I replaced my Belkin router with an old
Dell Optiplex GX1 computer. P1 cpu at 133 mhz, 96 megabytes of
memory, running Ipcop 1.4.5. Overnight last night, I was pulling some
big files down from Usenet. Newsleecher was running 6 connections (2
each to 3 separate usenet providers), total bandwidth here is 3Mbit
DSL. Now if you look at this graph

http://www.nobigdeal.org/cpu-day.png

you can see the amount of cpu horsepower required for the job. The
peak was almost 80% of the available cpu, and this on a P1 133 mhz
with only 6 connections driven. My rather vague understanding of Bit
Torrent indicates there could be a LOT more than 6 simultaneous
connections. I am already thinking of moving Ipcop to a faster cpu.
I have a junk HP motherboard with a Celeron 600, unfortunately it
won't fit in this proprietary-but-small Dell case. It's a real shame
that micro-ATX cases cost at least twice as much as a standard ATX
case.
 
That assumes that ??AA would use it as described... on their pieces of
plastic, which would of course shift responsibility for the pollution. The
fact that they are already polluting the system with crap tends to indicate
to me that they will likely use it as a tool directly on the networks.

For FastTrack and Gnutella networks, maybe. Actually it's not just a
'maybe', they ARE polluting the network with random junk results
returned for all searched, as are spammers, viruses and porn sites
(mostly this can be filtered easily in much the same way that spam can
be filtered, though I have encountered a few problematic files).
However Bittorent is not the same sort of network and they would have
to specifically target a given file rather than trying to pollute the
whole network. Since Bittorent doesn't search a network itself but
rather runs as a seed from the originating website, they would need to
either hack into Mandrake's website or purposely create a false hash
for a specific file (which would still be detected, it would just make
downloading of that specific file a bit of a slower process). Not
only would either of these methods be illegal, it would also be a huge
waste of resources since neither would do ANYTHING to prevent illegal
copying of files.

Now, creating false hashes of files that ARE being illegally copied,
well there's another possibility. However for Bittorent it is FAR
more effective just to go against the websites that were distributing
the seeds for music, movies and such. I saw "were" because the **AAs
have already taken down the big ones.
There has to be an answer to all this copy confontation, though I have to
admit I don't see it myself yet but then I'm no expert in encryption. Then
again, the MPAA et.al. seem to have employed the wrong "experts" when they
came up with CSS, which is not a cipher at all - what a blunder.

The blunders of the MPAA are so numerous that they're impossible to
name, and they go all the way back to trying to make VCRs illegal back
in the early 80's. Why motion picture companies even still bother
with such an inept organization is beyond me. They're spending
millions upon millions of dollars and all they've ever managed to
accomplish is to piss off the motion picture industries customers.
Same goes for the RIAA, and a LOT of music artists HAVE realized this
fact. Interestingly enough, through all this talk about the music
industry losing so much money to illegal downloads and copyright
infringement, the independent record labels are seeing somewhat of a
golden age with revenues and profits surging forward.
There is also apparently a positive side to the P2P "illegal" copying,
where it has actually increased sales of disks... and books, as mentioned
here: http://janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html - well worth the
read. It's also worth quoting a sentence from that site: "Again, from
personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+
albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that
didn't show I owed them money."

Yup, this story has been echoed by others in the music industry. In
fact, even some fairly big name recording artists have found that they
really aren't making any money from record sales anymore. Instead
they use their record sales almost like a marketing tool to sell their
music in other ways. Take someone like Moby, who has several platinum
selling records to his name. He's become the master of licensing his
music into commercials, movies, TV, etc.
That's a hazy area - AIUI there are countries where they are not obliged to
label their copy-protected disks as "non-archivable". If not enough people
know or care about copy-protected Audio CDs it just won't matter anyway -
that's a number which is not clear to me right now. It *is* worrying that
they have managed to get the media to regurgitate the idea that the sales
are down because of copying... when in fact, IMO, the real reason is that
the content is crap.:-)

What worries me is that not enough people know about the problems
associated with copy protected CDs NOW, and will just go right ahead
and buy them only to find out that 2 or 3 years down the road these
same CDs will no longer play in their stereo system. Even when these
CDs ARE labeled as having some sort of copy protection, it's usually a
VERY small and hard-to-find label.
 
How do you tell, before you buy?

In most countries the CD will have a warning label on it saying that
it "might not" (read "won't") play in certain computer systems or MP3
car stereos. If not, I'll sometimes ask the clerk. It hasn't been an
issue yet, but if I did happen to buy a CD with copy protection, I
would return it immediately and make sure that the reason why I was
returning it was clear.
 
Here is some straightforward evidence to add to the debate. As a
direct result of this thread, I replaced my Belkin router with an old
Dell Optiplex GX1 computer. P1 cpu at 133 mhz, 96 megabytes of
memory, running Ipcop 1.4.5. Overnight last night, I was pulling some
big files down from Usenet. Newsleecher was running 6 connections (2
each to 3 separate usenet providers), total bandwidth here is 3Mbit
DSL. Now if you look at this graph

http://www.nobigdeal.org/cpu-day.png

you can see the amount of cpu horsepower required for the job. The
peak was almost 80% of the available cpu, and this on a P1 133 mhz
with only 6 connections driven. My rather vague understanding of Bit
Torrent indicates there could be a LOT more than 6 simultaneous
connections. I am already thinking of moving Ipcop to a faster cpu.
I have a junk HP motherboard with a Celeron 600, unfortunately it
won't fit in this proprietary-but-small Dell case. It's a real shame
that micro-ATX cases cost at least twice as much as a standard ATX
case.

Are you running PCI NICs on that setup? I ran a very similar system,
except using a full-fledge Debian GNU/Linux install, on a Pentium 100
for several years and almost never saw the CPU usage exceed 10%, even
when I had several people sharing this network and running plenty of
P2P connections. The only time it ever got up there was when I needed
to throw an ISA NIC into the machine. Err, that and when I was trying
to recompile the kernel (though even then it didn't seem to drop
packets).
 
Tony Hill said:
Yup, this story has been echoed by others in the music industry. In
fact, even some fairly big name recording artists have found that they
really aren't making any money from record sales anymore. Instead
they use their record sales almost like a marketing tool to sell their
music in other ways. Take someone like Moby, who has several platinum
selling records to his name. He's become the master of licensing his
music into commercials, movies, TV, etc.

AFAIK artists receive ~0.50 US$/CD. So 500 k$ for a platinum
seller. The same stars can make that in one live performance.
They cut CDs to support their Tours, although the record companies
see it the other way because their margin is ~4.00 US$/CD.

-- Robert
 
For FastTrack and Gnutella networks, maybe. Actually it's not just a
'maybe', they ARE polluting the network with random junk results
returned for all searched, as are spammers, viruses and porn sites
(mostly this can be filtered easily in much the same way that spam can
be filtered, though I have encountered a few problematic files).

Filtered by whom? I'm talking about an environmental pollution of the wide
area network in general, with potential high overloads in some of the
lesser branches, which could impeding even legal transfers. I think we all
noticed the general slowdown end of last week following Patch Tuesday, as
the exploits hit the wires. Our office LAN switch was lit up with
broadcasts Friday evening.
However Bittorent is not the same sort of network and they would have
to specifically target a given file rather than trying to pollute the
whole network. Since Bittorent doesn't search a network itself but
rather runs as a seed from the originating website, they would need to
either hack into Mandrake's website or purposely create a false hash
for a specific file (which would still be detected, it would just make
downloading of that specific file a bit of a slower process). Not
only would either of these methods be illegal, it would also be a huge
waste of resources since neither would do ANYTHING to prevent illegal
copying of files.

How about them just targeting a "suspected" illegal seed which is
distributing just general files, which could be say, 90% legal. Those
people are not rational in their paranoid goals. If it looks like it might
be a duck...... BANG!

Yup, this story has been echoed by others in the music industry. In
fact, even some fairly big name recording artists have found that they
really aren't making any money from record sales anymore. Instead
they use their record sales almost like a marketing tool to sell their
music in other ways. Take someone like Moby, who has several platinum
selling records to his name. He's become the master of licensing his
music into commercials, movies, TV, etc.

Well Janis Ian *was* a big name back ~'80:-) and apparently she still draws
a decent sized audience... not that I'm a fan or anything like that. The
response from the above article was quite impressive from her
contemporaries and some more recent artists... and detailed in the
follow-up.
What worries me is that not enough people know about the problems
associated with copy protected CDs NOW, and will just go right ahead
and buy them only to find out that 2 or 3 years down the road these
same CDs will no longer play in their stereo system. Even when these
CDs ARE labeled as having some sort of copy protection, it's usually a
VERY small and hard-to-find label.

What?... you mean the copy protected CDs might not play in CD players of
future home stereos?... or as the CD gets the odd scratch and smudge the
descrambling will fail?
 
Filtered by whom?

By the client application.
I'm talking about an environmental pollution of the wide
area network in general, with potential high overloads in some of the
lesser branches, which could impeding even legal transfers. I think we all
noticed the general slowdown end of last week following Patch Tuesday, as
the exploits hit the wires. Our office LAN switch was lit up with
broadcasts Friday evening.

I suppose they could go so far as to try to create viruses, worms and
such to disrupt internet traffic in general, but I think that would be
too much even for the **AA organizations!

There is a certain degree of pollution in P2P networks in general,
that has been one of their on-going tactics for some time. This is
also the reason why some networks have kind of failed in favor of some
more robust networks. Here a lot of this pollution is filtered on the
server and superpeer side of things, normally hosted on rather
high-bandwidth links.
How about them just targeting a "suspected" illegal seed which is
distributing just general files, which could be say, 90% legal. Those
people are not rational in their paranoid goals. If it looks like it might
be a duck...... BANG!

It would be a bit of an annoyance, but more a waste of resources for
them than for those downloading the files. Their garbage sources
could get filtered out on either the server or client end. Perhaps
it's fortunate for many P2P networks that they've already been forced
to build some such capabilities into their tools in order to prevent
viruses/worms and spammers from spreading too much crap.
What?... you mean the copy protected CDs might not play in CD players of
future home stereos?... or as the CD gets the odd scratch and smudge the
descrambling will fail?

Either or both, depending on what copy protection method is used.
Most of these CDs will not play in stereos that have the capability of
playing CDs filled with MP3s (which is becoming pretty much the norm
for car stereos and quickly becoming common on home and portable CD
players) and they almost definitely won't play on many computer-based
CD players, ie Media Center or Home Theater PCs. In some forms of
copy protection they also remove a significant amount of the error
correcting capabilities built into CDs in order to use that space for
the extra copy protection bits. As such the CDs become much more
likely to be unplayable (or at least have blips and skips in the
music) due to physical damage.
 
Back
Top