Re: No? Break.
Got a reference for that? I'd like to use it for a cautionary tale at work :)
218 posts • joined 29 Aug 2017
Start by realizing the Internet is dangerous. Sending anything over it to a random third party is the rough equivalent of broadcasting your every thought with absolutely zero filtering in front of an army of voracious lawyers armed with every law on the books.
Once you realize this, and that Windows 10, Android, etc. all like to hoover data for transmission to random third parties as well as for analysis by their various owners, you realize you need to use Linux. And services like StartPage at the absolute least, and still be careful what you say. Try to keep data offline. Eschew any kind of cloud, or cloud-backed software, unless you can audit the provider and their systems.
Realize that modern consumer electronics contain various forms of spyware in the OS, if not even in the firmware itself (Intel ME, AMD PSP). Don't use these, even if you can put Linux on top of the turd sundae. Use something that respects your right to privacy (ARM, Power, RISC V, whatever).
Your cell phone is a nasty little snitch. It can't be fixed. Be careful what you say around it and what you use it for. Alexa etc. are right out.
Now look at your resultant life. Kind of resembles the one that might have happened if we hadn't shoved everything in the cloud and sold our souls to Silicon Valley subscription services, eh? Not too bad, inconvenient in spots, but that feeling of ideological liberation (the freedom to think about things, even nasty things, then actually determine from first principles that said nasty things are bad and should be prohibited from occurring) is nothing short of amazing. And to think we already had all that, de facto, 25 years ago....
Note the common thread in how things have gotten worse -- always on, pervasive, monitored connections through which all information must flow.
Just try this with a good set of offline hardcover encyclopedias. Short of a real life book burning (and consequent shutdown of all industry except subsistence farming) the information can't be destroyed or, most relevant here, tainted beyond all use (sort of like red diesel -- flags the viewer for further ... ahem ... investigation regardless of practical non-criminal use for said info*).
Really this is a failure on two fronts: first for assuming that when all details of everyone's life are known and this information acted on for ideological reasons with threat of deadly force (prison or worse) that somehow democracy can continue, and second for assuming that bloody centralized access to all human knowledge was ever going to end some other way.
At this point I'm convinced that the Internet has done more harm than good. The nascent, somewhat decentralized Internet, used as a tool and invited as needed into homes and businesses was one thing, the current media-controlled Internet is nothing more than an electronic nanny, plod, and leash all rolled into one.
* Did you know thermite is actually very useful industrially? It's used to install safety grounding systems, new track rails for trains, all kinds of things -- it's basically a quite safe chemical welding process (safe compared to the unregulated and quite nastier electric welding process). Yet this new law makes it so workers in these industries have to go back to unsafe ways of doing things or risk being labelled some kind of heinous terrorist. What fun.
While I don't agree with Google in any way here (we all know it turns into a big-tech-pay-for-slurp / bribe auditor fiasco)....
Awww. The poor rent-seeking app developers might have to actually pay an annual fee instead of just sitting back and collecting overpriced annual subscription fees for their simplistic app? Shoe on other foot, how do they like it?
Yeah, I do. And the reason for it is copyright. Specifically I have to re-do solutions that were made unacceptable by the DRM, lock-in, IP theft, data slurp, and legal problems that come with just *using* copyrighted software (e.g. Windows 10). I have to do this instead of purchasing something that just works, depriving the author and myself both of revenue, because of the insane licensing terms that come with the copyrighted software.
Either we decouple DRM from copyright, strengthen fair dealing to include modifying copyrighted software to remove objectionable bits, or both copyright and its associated DRM will go down together...eventually.
OK, try this one. From the EU, as an officially commissioned study*. Conclusion? Piracy has no real effect on revenue, or a possible positive effect, for the studied categories. In particular these gems:
For no DRM:
"For music, recent literature found generally small positive or negative effects of illegal online transactions, and the estimates of this study are in line with this."
For DRMed formats that are relatively difficult or expensive to consume legally (movies):
"the negative effects in the analysis of this chapter have large error margins." They proceed to basically discount the negative results on that basis.
The study goes on to show that willingness to pay is not as much a factor of the content itself as ease of consumption (download speeds, etc.). I can anecdotally confirm this -- I'd only be willing to pay *maybe* €0.25 for a single viewing (whether that's a stream or remote unlocked physical media) of a really good movie at home, €0.01 for a mediocre remix "popcorn" one, and that's with a group as a social activity (so total fee / people in group). €20 or more for a DRMed copy that is illegal to format shift, remix, or view on custom A/V equipment is completely outside of my willingness to pay, full stop. (For those that think I'm just trying to leech off those poor starving execs at Disney, bear in mind my willingness to pay for a 4k non-DRMed, standards compliant, resaleable, watermarked copy of a good film would be in the €100-€200 range as all the sudden one actually owns something "real" and can start building an actual collection of art).
Oh, one last thing. If we were just allowed to enjoy our legally bought content in peace in private however we wanted to (e.g. if DRM wasn't enshrined above fair dealing etc.) then I wouldn't care much about the duration of copyright. But, since DRM is so important (mining data on what is watched when, pushing ads, rent seeking on old works instead of creating new ones, etc.) then we have to start looking at tearing down or bypassing copyright. If that means promoting amd using copyleft works instead (since copyright, on which copyleft is based, will never be reformed it seems) then so be it.
I'm a bit embarrassed to admit I don't seem to have saved the original, and trying to dig it up has been nearly impossible. I did however run across a (very hard to locate) statistical analysis with much the same recommendation, though in that case decay modelling predicted an optimal copyright duration of just 15 years:
Funny how I got such a close number (14 years) just from a quick mental review of decay of interest in movies / reasonable time to wait to view the movie outside of a theatre or streaming rental service.
In any case, copyright is way out of control even compared to patents and other forms of IP -- why else do we see people putting so much effort into copyleft and making nothing, if not even going in the red financially, to create that copylefted content. The end of permanent, generational copyright is coming one way or another; will be "interesting" to see which path is taken (reign it back in or replace it entirely with copyleft works) and how ugly things have to get (complete loss / rewriting of cultural history? mass arrests?) before we reach that point.
With the current implementation of copyright I'm more of the opinion that even 14 years is too long. There's a definite trend toward requiring people to individually ask the rights holder for permission to view a work each and every time (for movies this is uniformly the case, especially with streaming and "digital downloads", but even Blu-ray is problematic). Either that gets fixed (including explicitly allowing breaking DRM for any legal reason including format shifting and resale of a work) or really I'd suggest a 5 year or less "exclusive marketing period" to replace all of copyright as it stands today.
Or we can all stick our heads in the sand and either 1.) commit mass civil disobedience through "piracy" (granted this does seem to be happening already) or 2.) tear down the entire old system by embracing copyleft works only (there's a minority doing this as well). I'd think changing the law is preferable given those two outcomes, especially as the latter will lead to a lot of real life starving artists...
Bootnote: There was a German study that concluded copyright is beneficial up to around 20 years and definitely harmful after that. It should be required reading for incoming lawmakers in all Western nations. I don't think it factored in DRM and streaming though; those "innovations" likely shorten the beneficial period even further.
Oh wonderful. A battle between two types of organization that, in the immortal words of Mark Twain, one wishes would both drown together* -- copyright "rightsholders" (note these are almost never the actual artists) which are busy strangling artistic freedom and all types of fair use, and then the Silicon Valley above-all-laws types busy strangling every other type of freedom including privacy.
How about making things real simple: Strict copyright liability for everyone no matter how small or large, but in turn copyright is limited back to a more reasonable 14 years, and DRM is explicitly allowed to be broken on out of copyright works. Either finish the job** and make artists turn to a copyleft / prepay model, or make copyright sane for once. Multiple generations required to *die* before any works fall into the public domain and can even be preserved (and now with DRM permanent effective copyright and instant at-a-single-request book burning and censorship) is just asking for a citizen revolt on many levels.
Or maybe just the expedient of preventing sale or effective transfer of copyright to a third party. Things might be a bit different if each and every artist involved in, say, a movie could license the resultant work independently with a proportional cut of the proceeds going to the other named authors. Right now we have Disney controlling most artistic audiovisual works *and* the people allowed to create them -- people would do well to remember tyranny can come from both from out of control government *and* out of control effective monopolies (e.g. company scrip, worker abuse w/ debtor prison, etc.).
Note that I say this as someone who's livelihood depends on IP protections. It's that far out of control. When piracy becomes the lower moral hazard in comparison to ideas and works being permanently locked into a cloud rental / third party beg for permission model, I end up losing the protections I need to retain any income from sale of IP "protected" works. A lower term copyright that fits into people's innate internal morality is a much better and safer idea for all parties involved....Disney can't actually sue every single person on the planet even if they think they could.
* "But the reader of the Deerslayer tale dislikes the good people in it, is indifferent to the others, and wishes they would all get drowned together.”
― Mark Twain, Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offences
** Where copyright itself is as Mr. Bunbury: "I think it is high time that Mr. Bunbury made up his mind whether he was going to live or to die. This shilly-shallying with the question is absurd."
― Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest
"The demand for Model 3 is insanely high. The inhibitor is affordability. It's just like people literally don't have the money to buy the car,
Ummm....I've got the money for the car. And I'm not going to buy one. I have no interest in a rented platform running proprietary software that answers back to its masters at Tesla, probably spies on everything said in and around it, mines my driving patterns for saleable data, locks me out of any maintenance or modifications I might want to do, and requires a giant EULA before purchase to (sort of) make this steaming hot pile of crap semi-legal.
And I'm expected to pay more for this abuse. No thanks!
You're thinking a bit small, no? Playing online game -- data trace exists of online game running, false positive filtered. Ditto for what's on telly -- this is basic application of big data here.
Plus, you're thinking too small on the use of said flag. Say a murder is committed in a city. The police first pull all the flagged accounts within some time window of the murder, and use that to guide the rest of the enquiry, instead of going to all the hassle of figuring out who to investigate based on physical evidence. Who cares if some innocent people are violated in the process, think of the children / etc....
And that's not even going into the China-style social credit score systems that the West is getting a little too interested in these days. "Alexa turn up the heat" == "not community minded citizen, wasting precious scarce resources, have a little automated drop in your credit score". Enough of those and now you can't get on a train or get questioned for every petty crime in your area. Oops.
nVidia's datacenter business isn't doing as well as expected....after making people pay extra for a license to use their (mandatory) proprietary drivers on their (locked and signed) hardware. Just because it's used in a datacenter.
Meanwhile AMD is busy providing open drivers that, for the most part, just work.. Brilliant strategy there, nVidia....
Those aren't for clearance. Those are to provide a slick surface with minimal contact area for the mouse to slide on. Every decent mouse has them.
The alternative is scraping your mouse, literally, along your desk. And having the entire underside of the mouse, including sensors, coated in desk grime. I prefer the replaceable feet personally...
I don't know....not defending Trump, but at the same time shouldn't we be looking a bit closer to home before making "shithole" statements? Mass surveillance, police abuse, mandatory password disclosure, insane copyright, etc. all make ol' Blighty a bit of a shithole itself, no?
Icon 'cause it makes one able to forget these things....
I always got a chuckle out of that scene -- many Unix systems will in fact tell you how to use them, IFF you know the command names already (man, -h). However what was being said did not, as you say, match the action on the screen.
Who else got a kick out of the quite real Connection machine in the background, sitting doing nothing but blinking its lights?
I'm sick and tired of providing free machine learning to Google in addition to already having Google slurp as much as they possibly can. It's reached a point where I won't do business with people that require a Google captcha and I hope some kind of legislative solution can be found to the exploitation of free human labor for AI training.
And if I decide to plug a scrambler into the phone line, that tap won't get very much. This new law seems to be going after encryption and specifically backdooring end user devices, which in the telco analogy is a much wider reach (basically making plugging a non-backdoored device into the network impossible due to the way these services are designed).
While you're mostly correct above, bear in mind ciphers and encryptions existed before the mail service even did. If you didn't want someone to know what you were saying to a friend, you might write something that would be either unintelligible or downright misleading.
This practice continued well into the 20th century. Those Chicago gangsters from the movies certainly weren't wanting to warm their cold hands with their "heaters" etc. after all...
At some point computer-based encryption allowed people to conveniently communicate in plain text without worrying about such codes and ciphers, since the machine would encrypt the communications for them. The larger battle that needs to be won, immediately, is to enshrine the use of client-based encryption (e.g. open source) as a fundamental human right. After all, encryption was available for use for the past several centuries, there is a strong argument to be made that it cannot be banned without a reworking of the entire social contract (and simultaneously plunging the nation into an agrarian dark age).
As far as information going dark, that's been a problem since written records started. Fire and paper don't get along very well, and human memory is so ... fickle.
Lawful intercept is a fluke from an older era where people routinely sent plain text communications written on paper or talked on a public phone. I also seem to remember that the Ne'er-do-wells tended to use various ciphers (ranging from weak to strong) since they were very much aware of the possibility of interception.
Lawful intercept itself is of dubious use, but also not exactly harmful (as has been pointed out, any LI methods are also generally available to crooks, so smart IT folks now routinely use this newfangled technology called "end to end encryption" when sending valuable / trade secret / etc. data over public wires).
The real danger here is that this bill goes beyond LI and tries to criminalize encryption, to varying effectiveness. What happens, for instance, if two people that want to keep their newfangled invention secret before applying for a patent (remember, first to file, not first to invent like the US used to have, so secrecy is vital) decide to use open source encryption (GPG?) on their client PCs. Is that legal? What happens to the two end users and/or the service provider(s) if the Aussie government or a well-endowed corporation with Aussie gov't ties wants to capitalize on the inventor's hard work and file first?
So if I understand this correctly, Intel is knowingly leaving an exploit available to advanced malware just to hide the fact that their broken processors would have terrible performance operating with the same security level as competitors. One could say noncompetitive performance, even.
So, does Intel have legal liability for malware using this hole now? Or do they have liability for the inflated benchmarks they are putting out on vulnerable systems?
Seriously, what gives?
I'd go with 1.) but with a modern twist. Who bothers restricting access to files they can normally access "in the cloud" before taking a foreign trip? This should be standard policy, that any employee has their account locked before a trip (after they pull the files they do need onto a clean laptop) but I know of almost no one doing so.
Maybe that will change now?
Does anyone remember Juno? That old bastion of "free" Email over dial-up across the pond for folks that didn't want to pay for a real Internet connection?
It had banner ads via the custom desktop application you had to use to dial in / read your Email. In fact looking at the screenshots in the article I'm afraid to admit the Juno application was probably more usable and less obtrusive.
"Then they shouldn't use gaming cards and gaming drivers, maybe? Teslas and Quadros exist for a reason. If you're too cheap for them, then them's the breaks."
So in your little world, who decides what research is worthy of having access to computer time? Historically that was academics, now you seem to be saying the fattest pocketbook (i.e. whoever can pay NVIDIA enough to get attention) dictates what can or cannot be simulated or investigated. That's bloody dangerous; in the past well funded ideas put forward by people with money, but not brains, often turn out to be wrong, while the grassroots academic research from smart, but poorer, people tends to be right.
Doesn't matter too much I suppose with AMD out there now. NVIDIA can bask at the top for a while, ignoring all the warning signs and milking this cash cow as long as they can, until they suddenly wonder what happened when the bottom falls out, like they do now with mining.
You seem to be the only one bringing "religion" into this discussion. I've worked on large projects and worked directly with the technical folks that literally design the hardware and software of these supercomputers at very large corporations. Don't believe for a second that they get special treatment or access to source code; if anything that shows your naivete and blind trust in sales personnel...
What part of "we don't get open drivers for those either" didn't you understand?
Tell me, when my OpenCL application on a Linux cluster does this:
#0 0x00007f5df188c201 in ?? () from /usr/lib/libcuda.so.1
#1 0x00007f5df1893d0f in ?? () from /usr/lib/libcuda.so.1
#2 0x00007f5df189412b in ?? () from /usr/lib/libcuda.so.1
#3 0x00007f5df18944b1 in ?? () from /usr/lib/libcuda.so.1
#4 0x00007f5df18b8ebd in ?? () from /usr/lib/libcuda.so.1
#5 0x00007f5df188988a in ?? () from /usr/lib/libcuda.so.1
and I'm not lucky enough to have direct access to an NVIDIA engineer dedicated to my site, how am I supposed to proceed?
Someone that finally gets it! Errors, or just plain incorrect behaviour in the proprietary stack doesn't go over well when you end up idling a multi-hundred-million pound supercomputer (or throwing away the results from it) because of some bug you have to a.) allow NVIDIA to reproduce and b.) wait for NVIDIA to come out with a fix. Even if it's something simple that you could have tracked and fixed yourself (since you probably consider getting your machine up and running again a higher priority than NVIDIA does).
And don't get me started on debugging obscure CUDA/OpenCL faults through the black box of that whole stack....
See any Windows supercomputers in the upper reaches of the Top 500? Didn't think so. Now where does NVIDIA make a ton of money on larger cards again?
The wind is starting to blow a different direction. People I've talked to in that space are just about fed up with NVIDIA and their tactics, yet are stuck because CUDA (not Windows). If NVIDIA pushes more and more restrictions, and AMD can somehow catch up in perf/watt, there will be a shift, period.
Couldn't have anything to do with their driver based DRM, lock in, active hostility toward open source (including purposefully locking out nouveau at the hardware level), could it?
Nah, let's just blame that crypto mining stuff. While we add more stuff to the driver EULA. And AMD opens more of their driver stack with Linux as first class citizen for compute....
"I'm no fan of MPAA, but that attitude emphasises the problem - you do not value work that has taken a great deal of time and money to create."
On the contrary, I'd pay *more* for a non-DRM encumbered movie file that I could buy *once*, archive, and literally hit play on whatever computer, set top box, etc. I have and have the movie start playing right away in full quality, even if the studio was out of business or the title was "out of print". I've even tried asking the studios directly if I could buy a product like that (basically something like a modern version of the old VHS/BetaMax tape) with no response at all.
You seem to miss the part where this is not being offered, and that the terms of access to a very large part of our common culture and heritage are, frankly, outrageous. Copyright had balances in place specifically to prevent the permanent destruction of culture, and DRM has blown all those balances to bits.
When I can buy said DRM free file, play it on my Linux boxes, etc. I will. Until then, printed books are still available and the telly still works with OTA....double oops, that latter one!
"Order a Blue-Ray on Amazon?"
And then you have to watch it on an approved player, with an approved TV, and sometimes with an Internet connection to the authorisation servers. Which means buying all that overpriced tat in the first place (which doesn't really work right half the time because of HDCP) when I've got a perfectly good computer with perfectly adequate GPU and screen that is more than capable of playing the same content, DRM-free, in 4K HD. As long as it's pirated, not bought, since Hollywood prevents sale of DRM-free video files and my fancy computing setup is Linux based without ME or PSP.
Nah, I think you miss the point. Let's update that analogy for an industry that actually adapted:
Go to Amazon. Click on item to buy. Puchase item with same day delivery. Get item that's all yours and you can do whatever you want with it.
For that matter, buying music tracks. Click, click, download, plays anywhere. Even if it's slightly easier to pirate music, why have the police on your tail (major inconvenience, jail!)? That's where having a product that is easy to buy (and for multimedia, actually own a copy of) helps cut down on piracy significantly.
Just try that with video....and then remember that for many people piracy, for all its downsides (and illegality) is still a more convenient way to view something. Now that's an industry that just won't adapt no matter what happens!
It's not like the rights holders have made it easy or convenient to pay for and access their work.
YouTube: Search, play, enjoy, move on
Movie studio: Sign up for monthly rental payments, agree to onerous legal mumbo-jumbo, sit through various threats and advertisements for stuff you don't care about, then watch the work in low quality on specific approved hardware devices under strictly controlled conditions.
In the stolen goods analogy, it would be more akin to having to engage in an inner city drug deal to buy the legitimate product. Sorry, but this mess is all on Hollywood's shoulders.
Depends on what you want it for. Raptor Computing Systems seems to have small desktop machines and some whitebox servers available at decent prices, but I'm not sure if anyone could get a full Summit node for anything close to affordable ("Schedule a consultation" on the AC922 page isn't a good sign). Adding NVIDIA of course means the price will skyrocket due to NVIDIA's anti-competitive practices.
Infiniband really is that good. Plus Mellanox supports the CAPI low-latency interconnect technology so there's an added boost right there.
If you want to experiment you can normally find Infiniband gear (and even POWER hardware) at reasonable prices. Most enlightening are the following two tests:
1.) Ping from one host to the other. Note the latency.
2.) Raw transfer bandwidth. Use RDMA (Linux supports this) and note the consistent speeds.
"IronBox" "IronChat". Sure put the criminals into "IronCuffs", though that product might not have sold as well...
Kudos to the Dutch police for running such a tech savvy operation. Great to see both the criminals arrested and the weaknesses of proprietary, centralized solutions highlighted again.
How about a simple blanket ban? Unless this is the final step in the Owellisation of the West, and the cause of its inevitable decline and fall when these perpetual children physically age to the point of running the country. Then fail because they literally cannot think outside the box.
Across the pond, in the US, students are literally losing spatial awareness and blundering into walls because of the toll the heavy handed "educational" system places on the developing brain. Food for thought.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019