JW'Space

http://www.osnews.com/story/22814/_Apple_Has_Declared_War_on_the_Tinkerers_of_the_World_

While the iPad can certainly be debated as a product, people on the internet are discussing not the product, but the shift devices like the iPhone and iPad represent: a shift away from a computer being accessible to it being something closed and impenetrable. Is this a future we want for ourselves?

In a beautiful piece called "Tinkerer's Sunset", Mark Pilgrim writes about how devices like the iPad will eventually mean the end of 'tinkerers'. It starts with the cringe-inducing anecdote about DVD Jon, who ended up in court over breaking CSS on DVDs. He was accused of "unauthorized computer trespassing", and DVD Jon's lawyers logically asked the prosecutors the following question: "On whose computer did he trespass?"

"His own," the prosecutors answered.

Mull over that one for a second.

Just like Pilgrim, I grew up in a household with computers - albeit much later than him, of course (since I'm considerably younger). We got our first personal computer in 1990 or 1991 (I was 6 or 7 years old), a 286 with MS-DOS and Windows 3.x. I still have the incredibly detailed manuals for this machine, from monitor to motherboard, to dot-matrix printer and more. I also have two gigantic manuals for MS-DOS and Windows 3.x, which also came as part of this machine, as well as the original, pristine 3.5" floppy disks for DOS and Win 3.x.

The father of a friend of mine ran a computer shop during those days. I didn't know him yet back then, but a few weekends ago, that friend surprised me with promotional materials and price listings from those days - and it turned out it was about, among others, the exact same machine I had as a child! Reminisce abound (supposedly, they have a few old 286 and 386 laptops lying around from those days, so hopefully I'll be able to get my hands on one for OSNews).

Back in those days, I, too, dabbled with programming. I don't know why, exactly, but at some point I decided not to pursue that particular past time. Coincidentally, this was around the time I got a NES for my birthday, and on top of that, I pretty much spent my entire childhood playing outside anyway.

Pilgrim's path is different, obviously, and I'm sure many can relate with him. One day, when Pilgrim was 10 years old, his father came home with a computer, an Apple ][e. "As it happens, this computer came with the BASIC programming language pre-installed. You didn't even need to boot a disk operating system. You could turn on the computer and press Ctrl-Reset and you'd get a prompt," Pilgrim writes, "And at this prompt, you could type in an entire program, and then type RUN, and it would run."

"By age 12, I was writing BASIC programs so complex that the computer was running out of memory to hold them," he adds, "By age 13, I was writing programs in Pascal. By age 14, I was writing programs in assembly language. By age 17, I was competing in the Programming event in the National Science Olympiad (and winning). By age 22, I was employed as a computer programmer."

Pilgrim argues that you don't become a programmer by hacking, but by tinkering. "It's the tinkering that provides that sense of wonder," Pilgrim states, "You have to jump out of the system, tear down the safety gates, peel away the layers of abstraction that the computer provides for the vast majority of people who don't want to know how it all works."

The paradigm that the iPad and similar devices present do not enable this tinkering. While that may not be a problem for people who already are programmers, it will become a problem for people who don't yet know they're programmers. Yes, you can develop for the iPad too, but you need to pay for it, which will give you a certificate - which is actually a cryptographic key giving you slightly more access to your own computer.

Sure, you can jailbreak, but that's besides the point, Pilgrim argues. "I don't want to live in a world where you have to break into your own computer before you can start tinkering," he writes, "And I certainly don't want to live in a world where tinkering with your own computer is illegal."

I find it very hard to disagree with him. Do you want to live in a world where there's no such thing as "your" computer? Where you can go to jail for breaking into "your" computer? A world where children are discouraged from learning how "their" computers work? It seems that this is clearly the direction Apple is going towards. I wouldn't be surprised to see that 5-10 years from now, Macs will be just as closed as iPhones and iPads.

"Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world," Pilgrim concludes his post, "With every software update, the previous generation of 'jailbreaks' stop working, and people have to find new ways to break into their own computers. There won't ever be a MacsBug for the iPad. There won't be a ResEdit, or a Copy ][+ sector editor, or an iPad Peeks & Pokes Chart. And that's a real loss. Maybe not to you, but to somebody who doesn't even know it yet."

陌生人的眼光有一种敌对性，这不是说任何时候他人都是怀着恶意来看待你，毋宁说这是人的一种保护姿态，在不清楚对方会否参与到自己的身份游戏时先行回绝对方，除非对方给出友好的姿态，即要发出要参与到相互身份游戏的信号。但即使在这个时候，戒备仍然没有解除，只有等相当熟悉之后这种戒备才会降低到最低的限度，在这个时候互动的角色游戏才可以随时随地地进行。可以想象，试图以另一种身份出现时，熟人的凝视会成为一种对抗，因为他想用过去的方式来看待你，仿佛你从来不会改变。在这种情况下，互动角色游戏便会崩溃。

为什么会害怕从别人处知道自己呢？他人的承认并不是什么可有可无的东西，也不是锦上添花的小玩意，毋宁说只有在他人处我们才能得到自己。他人永远是我们获得自己的源泉，我们的身份是以他人对我们的言语、姿势、表情强加给我们的。我们对自己的身份并没有十足的决定权，我们预先计划自己的身份，努力行动，试图获得他人的首肯，只有当他人确认之后预设的身份才会获得合法性。自我设法维持一个统一，连续的形象，即使要牺牲一部分对真实的感知。他人无疑可能在这个统一的形象中间打开一个缺口，因此他人的眼光才可能是令人焦虑的。

 

言语的意义总比句子的意义更多。一个被说出的陈述句不只陈述事实，它还包含了一种建立说话者与聆听者的联系的企图，甚至有时候这个企图就是说话的全部目的。无论对方怎么回应（除了无动于衷），这种关系都是建立了的。唯独无动于衷是对这种建立关系的企图的彻底的拒绝，拒绝给予对方任何的承认。这种结果比什么都没说要糟糕得多。因此，当他人向你提问的时候，他表达的不只是想弄清楚某个疑惑的愿望，还提出了一种邀请，接纳对方到自己的角色游戏里。这正是人们那么希望别人提问的原因。作为言说的一种方式，书写也就带着被他人阅读的期望。在这种意义上，最私密的日记也是期望着被阅读的。没人读的秘密，也就不再有秘密的意义。性幻想都预设着他人的位置。

 

他人是我们获得身份的终极来源。在这个意义上，一些在常识中被鄙视的行为，比如虚荣，哗众取宠，就变得情有可原了。做出这些行为的人无非是想从别人那里取得而又还未得到的东西，即自己的身份。由于获得承认之紧迫和通常手段之无效，人就只好采取任何手段，即使由此所收获的只是粗劣替代品。

 

如果说人生总是快乐，或者快乐总是能应邀而到，那么也没什么可说的。可苦难，作为一种极度不愉快的东西，它本身没有意义，它所能有的意义便是许诺某些美好的东西，或是它本身是别的什么事情发生的必然后果。宗教也就遵循着这样的思维，它赋予人世间的苦难以意义，也就是给予苦难以系统的解释。比如说，生病是因为做错了事情或是背叛了上帝，或是这辈子对苦难的容忍能修得自己在天堂的位置。人可以承受有意义的苦难，但不能承受没有意义的苦难。一个非洲男孩甫一出生便身患重疾，并受残疾之苦，没长到成年便因为传染病和营养不良夭折。如果说这个人与发达国家的孩子相比并没有做过什么该死的坏事，他也不会因此苦难而上天堂，那么在这无意义的苦难之前人生还怎么继续呢？我当然没有遇到什么苦难，但焦虑也让我迄今为止的人生显得无趣，使快乐成为相当罕见的事情。

如果说存在主义的一个显著特点就是给人的基本负面情绪赋予了意义的话，我会喜欢萨特的哲学便是自然而然的事情，它甚至就是我的信仰。

http://www.osnews.com/story/22787/Mozilla_Explains_Why_it_Doesn_t_License_h264

This week, both YouTube and Vimeo opened up beta offerings using HTML5 video instead of Flash to bring video content to users. Both of them chose to use the h264 codec, which meant that only Safari and Chrome can play these videos, since firefox doesn't license the h264 codec. Mike Shaver, Mozilla's vice president of engineering, explained on his blog why Mozilla doesn't license the h264 codec.

Shaver explains that h64 is not a suitable codec for Mozilla, because of two main reasons: licensing cost, and the codec's closed nature.

The h264 codec is patented up the wazoo by the MPEG-LA, and while Google, Apple, and Microsoft have paid for a license to include the codecs within their products, the Mozilla foundation has not, and will not do so. Without this license, it is illegal (in many countries) "to use or distribute software that produces or consumes H.264-encoded content. Indeed, even distributing H.264 content over the internet or broadcasting it over the airwaves requires the consent of the MPEG-LA, and the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010."

Mozilla has a number of clear and well-argued reasons for not buying the license. First, it's very limited. Google, for instance, paid for a license that transfers to users of Chrome, but if you build Chrome from source yourself or extend the browser, the license does not apply. What's even worse is that the license would not carry over towards, for instance, Linux distributors - not acceptable, of course, for Firefox.

"Even if we were to pay the USD 5000000 annual licensing cost for H.264, and we were to not care about the spectre of license fees for internet distribution of encoded content, or about content and tool creators, downstream projects would be no better off," Shaver explains.

The second important reason not to license the h264 codec is a more ideological one. "We want to make sure that the Web experience is good for all users, present and future," Shaver writes, "I want to make sure that when a child in India or Brazil or Kenya discovers the internet, there isn't a big piece of it (video) that they can't afford to participate in. I want to make sure that there are no toll-booth barriers to entry for someone building a whole new browser, or bringing a browser to a whole new device or OS, or making and using tools for creating standard web content."

He adds that "the web is undeniably better for Mozilla having entered the browser market, and it would have been impossible for us to do so if there had been a multi-million-dollar licensing fee required for handling HTML, CSS, JavaScript or the like".

It is very hard to disagree with Shaver on this one. We have seen what happens when we make the web dependant and proprietary - Flash, Internet Explorer 6 - and yet here we are, ten years down the line, ready to fall into the same trap all over again. I don't care if h264 is better now, what matters is that in the future, we haven't locked ourselves into yet another patent-encumbered format that alternative platforms can't make use of.

The specification writers for HTML5 should have the guts to do what's right. It doesn't matter if Theora is (arguably!) worse than h264 - the standard is open, patent-free, and developing at an incredible pace. I'd rather we bite through the sour apple now, instead of having to deal with the lock-in down the line. Here we are, loaded with bad experiences with lock-in on the web, and yet we seem to be doing it all over again. I'm sure we'll blame Microsoft eventually.

Shaver ends his post with a note about using platform-native frameworks, such as DirectShow in Windows, to handle the video format. This solution has been suggested quite often, but Mozilla doesn't see it as an option, because of a multitude of problems.

"There are issues there related to principle (fragmentation of format under the guise of standardized HTML), to effectiveness (about 60% of our users are on Windows XP, which provides no H.264 codec), to security (exposure of arbitrary codecs to hostile content), and to user experience (mapping the full and growing capabilities of [the video tag] to the system APIs provided)," Shaver explains.

看过卡夫卡的《城堡》《诉讼》《变形记》。小说描写的场景和情节都和我所经历过的梦境有不少相似之处：例如不断有障碍挡在前方，以至于永远无法达到目标；或者说总有这样那样的事情吸引你的注意，以至于原先的目的都被遗忘了。某些原应该很庄严宏伟的场所和仪式却变得非常儿戏和荒谬。小说的主人公都呈现一种理性自信的小市民气质，可是主人公面临的处境远不是理性和自信能够处理的，这恐怕是反映了理性的局限性。

如果说卡夫卡只是在揭露当时其所处时代的真相（如国内某些固步自封的评论家所说），那么他完全不需要把一切写得那么抽象，完全可以按现实主义的风格来写。那么既然他这样写了，那很可能是非这么写不可的东西。什么东西必须要那么绕着弯来写呢？可能是关于信仰这类难以用语言描述的东西。

 

科学中与艺术的联系，其实并不是人们所宣称的那么多。科学的所谓“美”，也就是对对称和简洁的追求，恐怕仅仅构成艺术的一小部分。如果把现代主义艺术（包括什么抽象艺术，我确实对艺术不太懂）纳入艺术的话，所谓科学的“艺术”也只反映古典艺术的一部分而已。

而科学的所谓的“美”，也可以有另外的解释。对称、简单意味着信息量的减少，如果人能凭之掌握自然的知识的量减少，对人的思考有莫大的好处。因为人脑的信息储存量大，但它的工作记忆却很有限，这就像是CPU的寄存器那样。关键信息减少，人脑能运转得更加迅速，错误的数量也减少了。所以说，科学对所谓“美”的追求也可能带着一定的功利性。

 

人的心灵是个很复杂的东西。假如把人的心灵看作一个冰山，自我意识只占整个心灵的冰山一角，因而很可能我们对自己的了解也只是冰山一角而已。当你的自我意识已经成为或想成为某种人、某个身份时，你怎么知道你的其他部分想不想成为别的什么呢，甚至是你万分恐惧的东西？

派克在他的书《邪恶人性》中说，成年人的大部分思维都在潜意识中进行，而儿童（或许还包括青少年）的思维则全部在潜意识中进行。

 

我是个很喜欢讨论所谓“严肃”问题的人（也可叫“基本”问题）。在跟不同的人讨论这些问题，我发现一些很“基本”的词汇会产生很大的分歧。分歧是如此大，以至于对话和沟通变成了各说各话，甚至达到沟通不能的程度。那么，在对词汇的理解如此不同的前提下，对话又有什么意义呢？怎样才叫对一个词理解正确呢？我那时候认为，对于日常生活来说，大家的理解差异不大，问题不大，分歧较大处可以尊重对方的想法。但讨论“严肃”问题时，就需要就潜在分歧的词汇的意义达成一致。至于在这个一致的程度也是个问题，常常我们在这个层次上能够达成一致，再往下一个层次又出现了分歧。

按结构主义的说法，一个词的意义，是它与其他词不一样。或者说，词汇可以被看作一个网络，每一个词都占有不同的位置，重要的不是这个词本身的意思，而是它在网络中的位置。古典的思想认为，词都有它固定的意思，直接指向非语言世界。对于一个词的理解有一个正确的理解（单义性），其他都是谬误。这样的思想存在着一种对划一性的要求，这也是强调差异和多元价值的现代思想家所要克服的东西。（划一性有多恐怖？在德国电影《浪潮》里面，要求划一性被看作是独裁政府统治的方式之一）

 

尝试看冯友兰的《中国哲学新编》，才刚看到前言就兴致全无了。马克思、恩格斯和列宁依然独占着圣贤的位置，唯心主义和唯物主义远古而幼稚的斗争还在持续着，20世界的伟大思潮和巨人全部都被忽略。无法估量冯友兰失去了多少东西。

全部摘自尼采的《偶像的黄昏》：

“我们的学说只能是什么?——没人把人的特性给予人，上帝不能，社会也不能，他的父母和祖先也不能，还有他自己也不能(这里最后否定的观念的荒谬性，作为"思维的自由"，已被康德，或许也己被柏拉图传授过)。一个人就这么存在，被创造成这样或者那样，处在这样的状况下，这样的环境中，没人该为此负责。他那本性的宿命.、，无法从所有已是和将是之存在的宿命中剔除。他不是一个自身意图、一个意志、一个目的结果，不会用他去尝试，实现一个"人的理想"或者一个"幸福的理想"或者一个"道德的理想"，一一想要把自己的本性推入任何一种目的，这是荒谬的。我们发明了“目的”这个概念：现实中目的阙如……人是必然的，人是一段厄运，人属于整体，人身处整体中，不存在任何东西可以判决，衡量，比较和责难我们的存在，因为这意味着判决，衡量，比较和责难整体……不过除却整体什么也没有！没人再得负责，存在的类型不再允许被归诸于第一因，世界既非知觉，也非作为"精神"的一个统一体，这才是伟大的解放，一一生成的无辜这样才能重建……“上帝”这个概念至今是针对此在的最大异议·…..我们否认上帝，我们否认面对上帝的责任:借此我们才能拯救世界。一一”

“基督教是个体系，一个对事物作了总体考虑的和完整的观点。如若有人从中剥离出一个主要概念，即对上帝的信仰，他就会以此摧毁这个整体:他就不再持有任何必要的东西了。基督教的前提是，人不知道，不能知道，对他来说什么是善，什么是恶。他信仰上帝，惟有上帝知道这点。基督教的道德是个命令;其根源是超验的;它处在一切批评，一切批评之权利的彼岸;唯独当上帝是真理时，它才拥有真理，一一它与对上帝的信仰共存亡。”

"什么是善?所有那些在人身上激起权力的情感、权力意志以及权力自身的东西。
什么是恶?所有那些来自虚弱者的东西。
什么是快乐?来自权力增强的情感，来自一种抵抗被克服的情感。
不要满足，而要拥有更多的权力;不要和平，而要更多的战争;不要德性，而要价值。
虚弱者和失败者灭亡!这就是社会的首要原则。甚至应该帮助他们灭亡。
是什么比种种罪行更为有害?对于失败者和虚弱者的同情一基督教。"

original: http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/01/researchers-identify-command-servers-behind-google-attack.ars

VeriSign iDefense researchers have identified the source of the recent cyber-assault against Google and have found the command-and-control servers that were used to orchestrate the attack.

原文：http://www.osnews.com/story/22727/Google_To_Cease_Censorship_in_China_Might_Close_Google_cn

So, I was about to go to bed when major news regarding Google and China hit my browser. Google has stated on its blog that after a number of attacks upon Google's servers, and attempted cracking of GMail accounts from Chinese human rights activists, the company is thinking of ceasing its operations in China. Google will, in any case, cease censoring search results on Google.cn.

Google's David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, made the big announcement on the Google blog. As it turns out, Google discovered that what first appeared to be a random cyber attack on the company, was actually a concerted effort against several companies.

In addition, and far more worryingly, Google claims that the primary target of the attack was the GMail accounts of Chinese human rights activists from all over the world. "We have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective," Drummond writes, "Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves."

"As part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties," he added, "These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers."

Drummond further details that Google is not happy with the Chinese government's attempts to further limit free speech on the web, and that the above facts combined force Google to rethink its operations in China.

"We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all," Drummond writes, "We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China."

This is major news, of course, and I have to say that if Google sticks to its guns on this one, then I most certainly applaud their course of action.

全部摘自尼采的《偶像的黄昏》：

“倘若一个人拥有了他生命的为何?，就几乎能容忍所有的如何? 人并不追求幸福;只有英国人这么做。”

“谁要是不懂得把他的意志置入事物，他至少要把一个意义置入其中:这就是说，他相信，已经有个意志置身其内("信仰"的原则)。”

“从前，人们把变化，转换和生成，统统看成假象的证明，看成某种会把我们引入歧途的事物存在的标记。今天，我们相反地看到，恰恰是理性和
偏见迫使我们，设定统一，同一，持续，实体，起因，物性和存在，在某种程度上，让我们自己卷入谬误，强制我们陷于谬误:根据我们这里的一种严格的复核，我们对此十分肯定，即此处有谬误。”

“语言中的"理性":一个多么具有欺骗性的老妪!我担心，我们无法摆脱上帝，因为我们还相信语法……”

“……就是在政治中，现在敌意也得到升华， 变得更明智，更审慎，更宽容。几乎每个党派都领会到，它们那自我保存的利益所在，正是反对党力量不衷;而这对大政治同样有效。特别是一个新的创造物，比如一个新的帝国，比之需要朋友，更需要敌人:只有在对立中，它才感到自己是必要的，在对立中它才成为必要……”

“……上帝喜爱的圣人，是那个理想的阉人. .”

“对此的心理学解释——把某些陌生的东西归溯到某些陌生的东西上，使人轻松，满足，此外还有-种权力感。伴随着陌生之物的是危险，不安，忧虑一一一第一个冲动就是消除这种令人难堪的状况。第一原理:有一个解释比没有好。因为归根到底牵涉到的仅是摆脱压抑人的表象的愿望，人们就不怎么严格地对待摆脱它们的手段:陌生事物借此宣布自己为已知的第一个表象，让人感到如此舒适，以至于人们把它"当作真实的"。("力量的")快感证明是真理的标准。原因的冲动，也就是由恐惧感决定和激起。"为什么?"的问题，只要可能，就不该是为了原因自身的缘故而提供原因，相反是原因的一个种类一个令人宽慰、解脱和轻松的原因。某些已知的事物，被经历过的事物，作为原因被录入记忆的事物，是这种需求的第一个结果。新的、未经历过的、陌生的事物，被作为原因排除在外。一一也就是说，被寻找的不是某种作为原因的解释，而是某种被挑选的和受偏爱的解释。借助这类解释，陌生的、新的和未曾经历过的感觉，能够最迅速和最频繁地得以清除， 最通常的解释。结果是:某种原因的设定愈来愈占优势，集结成系统，最后取得支配地位，这就是说，简单地排除了其他的原因和解释。-二银行家主刻想到"生意"，基督徒立刻想到"罪孽"，姑娘立刻想到她的爱情。”

“道德和宗教的全部领域可归到这个幻想的原因概念之下。对于令人不快的总体感觉的"解释"。同样的感觉由仇视我们的生灵(凶恶的幽灵:最著名的案例一一歇斯底里作为女巫的误解)造成的。同样的感觉是由不能认可的行为造成的("罪孽"感和"邪恶"感被归咎于一种生理的不愉快人们总能找到对自己不满的理由)。同样的感觉被造成，作为惩罚，作为对一种我们不该做之事和不该是之人的惩罚和清偿(被叔本华以公开的形式概括为一个命题，在此之中道德作为其本身、作为生命那实际的投毒者和诽谤者出现) :每种巨大痛苦，不管它是肉体的，还是精神的，都表明我们理应得到;因为，倘若我们并非应得它，那么它就不会光顾我们。同样的感情被造成，作为轻率、结局糟糕的行为的后果(情绪，感官被设定为原因和"有过失";生理的紧急状态借助其他的紧急状态被解释为"理应得到")。一对令人愉快的总体感觉的"解释"。同样的感觉由信任上帝造成。同样的感觉由对善行的意识造成(所谓的"善良"，一种生理状况，它有时同一种顺利的消化酷似得难己区分)。同样的感觉由事业的成功结局造成(一一天真的错误推断:一项事业的成功结局根本不能给一个忧郁症患者或者一个帕斯卡带来令人愉快的总体感觉)。同样的感觉由信，爱，盼望造成基督教的德行。事实上，所有这些臆想的解释都是结果状态，似乎是乐意或者不乐意之感觉的一种错误的方言翻译:人们处在希望的状态里，因为生理的基本感觉重又变得强大和丰富;人们信任上帝，因为充裕和强大的感觉给他带来安宁。一一道德和宗教完全属于谬误的心理学:在任何单个情况中，原因和效果被混淆;或者真理被同信以为真的东西的效果混淆;或者意识的一种状态被同这个状态的因果关联混淆。”

发生了一个事情，人们往往只在其中寻找自己的影子或对立面，却没有人（或者很少人）对事情的本身感兴趣。

在全球变暖的问题当中，科学似乎陷入这样的一个糟糕境地：一方面它受到政治的干涉，另一方面科学怀疑论者虎视眈眈等着科学政治联姻的丑闻，伺机上位。这样的情况下，就需要一位康德式（或维特根斯坦式的）的人物，一方面为科学设置一个界限，不可跨过这个界限进入政治也不能让政治进入，另一方面拒斥科学怀疑论。康德的三大批判所起的作用是，一方面压制理性主义者的肆无忌惮，为理性设置一个界限，另一方面驳斥以休谟为代表的怀疑论者，最终的目的是：重建形而上学。