Posts by h4rm0ny

Re: Speed

>>"Does it load faster than the Office XP that I'm still rocking?"

Well my 2013 version of Office does, so probably.

Re: Still with the ribbon?

>>"It's been years and I still can't find a damn thing with the ribbon"

Rubbish. You're either lying or an idiot.

Re: Could be a good way to get out of a wedding...

>>"prefer to look stupid for 15 minutes"

15 minutes? This is person is going to be the one that got dumped because they were too stupid for their bride for the rest of their life.

Re: Could be a good way to get out of a wedding...

I think I'd rather get married than appear that stupid in front of a crowd.

Re: @h4rm0ny - When do we see an Windows phone with Android?

>>"...pretty much all phones with very rare exceptions - are locked with a single OS in mind... There, I fixed it for you! Who was Microsoft afraid of when the decided to lock ARM tablets, prey tell us ?"

I don't see that you've fixed anything. I do see that you've shifted ground once again. You responded to my point about Secure Boot on x86 (where it is by far most relevant seeing as the criticism were from people saying it discriminated against GNU/Linux distros) by demanding to know abour ARM because that's what the majority of phone OSs ran on. I responded to that and now you've shifted to ARM tablets. But most Windows tablets are x86. The only ones that weren't were the now discontinued Surface RT and Surface 2. As to who "Microsoft are afraid of", I don't know but I can see you're determined to find some niche whereby you can prove that Secure Boot is an attack on Linux despite the fact it provides real and actual security benefits against attacks that are actually out there in the wild today. But of course to you this can't be the motivation, it must be an attack on Linux. Even if you have to retreat to a sub-set of a sub-set to find reasons to support this.

But to answer your question - "Apple." That's who Microsoft were "afraid" of. The Surface RT was a show-case for Windows 8 as a touch-OS and it was locked just like the iPad which was its competitor. Not GNU/Linux.

Re: @h4rm0ny - When do we see an Windows phone with Android?

>>"Yes, very useful technology because it makes sure no other OS can't be booted unless Microsoft allows it."

That's provably false. You can turn Secure Boot off as you well know. And doing so is as easy as switching a boot device in the old BIOS. It's even, as shown, a requirement that a user be able to turn off Secure Boot. These are not debatable facts. Your statement is wrong.

>>"Can you please explain why there's only one Platform Key stored and even though end-user can add keys, only one (coincidentally Microsoft's) can be used as a master ?"

Yes, I can explain. There can only be one platform key and this can't be modified because that's how the technology works - the OEM creates a single key for their device. One might as well ask why you only have a single PGP key for a given email address. Yes, you could design it so you had more, but being able to say "my email is valid if it is signed by any of my three private keys" serves no purpose and in fact weakens security. These are at base the same technologies on the same principles. What would be the point in having three private keys for your email and signing your outgoing emails with different ones just because? Nothing. Same thing here with the Platform Key. It's not a conspiracy.

As to why Microsoft have a key in there, because they paid to create and maintain one. Any GNU/Linux distro could do the same if they wish. However, given that GNU/Linux doesn't have the capability to use Secure Boot currently (you can sign Grub or whatever other bootloader you wish, but it doesn't do any OS verification so there's no security advantage here), they don't bother. Only RedHat and Ubuntu do and that's really for trivial gain and in RedHat's case at least, they actually just outsourced key creation and maintenance to MS because MS already had the infrastructure set up for it. But as I say, RedHat and Ubuntu are only signing the boot loader which does an unverified sign-off so it's largely pointless.

>>"Sure, you can disable Secure Boot but Microsoft will guffaw and point any government or large enterprise that the machine is insecure and can't be trusted."

Relevant part is bolded - you are agreeing with everything that I have claimed: that Secure Boot doesn't stop anyone using GNU/Linux. As to the rest, you're claiming that Microsoft marketing will try to show their OS is more secure than others. Well, duh! Same as everyone else. And are you going to actually try and deny now that being able to verify that the OS you're booting hasn't been altered isn't a useful security feature now? Because you'd be wrong about that, too.

Re: When do we see an Windows phone with Android?

>>>>>"The Windows 8 requirements even mandate that for >>an x86 device<< to be certified the user must be able to disable Secure Boot if they wish."

>>So what. In the mobile device market, no one cares about x86

Well I didn't bring up Secure Boot. It was given by someone who believed it was some sort of attack on Linux. It isn't. That's all that I was answering. I referred to x86 because that's where all the excitement about Secure Boot took place, what with Red Hat commenting on it, Ubuntu users criticising it, etc. It's pretty much a non-discussion in the mobile area because everyone - iPhone and Android OEMs and Blackberries and pretty much all phones with very rare exceptions - are designed with a single OS in mind and that's what they run.

Re: When do we see an Windows phone with Android?

Also, I'd contest this article that MS "fans" are seething about this. I am probably one of this forums noted MS "fans", and I don't see a problem with it - it doesn't affect me as a WP user. MS have always tried to promote projects on their own even cross platform. Heck, they released their touch version of Office on iPad first, simply because that had larger market share.

Re: When do we see an Windows phone with Android?

>>"That their pushing for Secure Boot could certainly be regarded as anti-linux."

Secure Boot is not "anti-Linux". It's useful technology that protects against actual threats in the wild right now. GNU/Linux can just also take advantage of it - it's a UEFI technology, not a Microsoft one. MS are a member of the UEFI consortium but then so are a dozen others including all the big hardware players like Samsung, Lenovo, IBM, et al. There's no conspiracy here. The Windows 8 requirements even mandate that for an x86 device to be certified the user must be able to disable Secure Boot if they wish. Which is a simple option in UEFI as easy as switching the boot device. Secure Boot has never stopped anyone from installing a Linux distro.

The hysteria about Secure Boot was massively overblown and a lot of people fell victim to FUD about it.

Re: Make mine Mac

If Apple ever make a table it will be 2" high and the tech news sites will praise it for its thinness.

Re: I'll pass on the expensive version

Perhaps they could do a lady's model with David McCallum.

Re: Perceived value

>>"I don't think he's arguing that you "should" do that. I think he's arguing that people "do" do that."

But he's also arguing it without any context of whether it is a good way of advertising ones wealth or not. The point was made earlier that nature is filled with frivolous resource usage to attract mates - the example of peacock tails was given. However, human beings are the most intelligent animals we know (cynical jokes can be inserted here if you wish). Even when we are extravagant we require rationalizations for ourselves. Someone could demonstrate their wealth by setting fire to $17,000 dollars in front of other people. That would not earn them respect, they'd be derided for it and considered crass by the huge majority of people including other wealthy people.

When someone orders a £500 bottle of wine or spends £5,000 on a TAG watch, it's accompanied by some waffle about how great and brilliant the quality is in some way. This quality may or may not justify the actual expense but there is a rationalization that is used. Even if the fig leaf is quite small sometimes.

The point is that yes - conspicuous consumption exists, but it is best done in a direction where society will be impressed because you are obtaining something that most of the rest can't afford but would like. Spending it in a direction where the rest can't afford but don't care - that doesn't net you the same returns. And it is my contention that the iWatch falls into this category. It blatantly does not compete with true luxury watches as a luxury watch itself. Similarly there are other products out there that are better than it as a fitness device (Microsoft's Band is demonstrably better in this regard) or a wrist computer (the Android devices have the edge here, imo). That leaves design aspect and as jewellery, it very definitely loses out to more classic luxury watches.

TL;DR: You could demonstrate your ability to throw around money by buying a Segway to ride around on, but rich people don't try to look cool by doing this. It matters not only that you show off your wealth, but how you do it.

>>"In the US Constitution, it states that copyrights should only be for a brief limited period of time!"

Ah that would be why people primarily pirate older stuff rather than the latest releases - they're

protesting against the copyright terms being too long.

>>"Putting a person in jail for 10 years because he copied a movie that he paid for is a crime against the people"

Firstly, the 10 years isn't for a casual download of a few movies, it's for major league and probably commercial piracy. The typical pirate who is convicted gets a fine. Secondly it's your contention that most pirates are downloading things they've previously bought? Because that's rubbish. Before making arguments based on someone receiving 10 years in prison for downloading a movie they've already bought, see if that matches up to reality, because that's not what's being talked about here.

Re: 10 years...

Logically any artist that is "pro-piracy" can forgo signing a contract and just upload their music for free. If they believe that unrestricted public sharing is the best thing for them, current law doesn't prevent them in the slightest. The converse, if piracy is tolerated is not true, you're removing the ability of artists to choose how they want to sell their work.

TL;DR: an artist being in favour of free distribution is not an argument in favour of changing anything - they already have what they want.

Re: When is theft not theft?

>>"It might not be the best definition, but there's still an important difference between depriving someone of a thing they have (theft) and potentially depriving someone of something they might have otherwise had, but currently don't."

The thing someone "might have otherwise had", is called "income".

Re: When is theft not theft?

>>"You are correct when it comes to everyday usage, but in a Court of Law, the legal definitions of the words are important and cannot be ignored"

One thing we can all be pretty certain of, is that El Reg. is not a court of law. ;) Here the definition works as follows: pro-piracy, "theft" does not include copyright infringement. Everyone else - familiar with the common English language meaning and gets it.

Re: I'm not a big believer in prison.

>>"Do just the management go down or are all the shareholders also guilty of profiting from the crime?"

Management unless it can be shown that investors knew they were funding illegal behaviour. Which is as it should be. Would you like to buy some shares in a company and then go to prison unexpectedly a couple of years later?

But prison is rare - generally the company is fined which again, is beneficial as that way you get restitution and prison usually only serves to drain our taxes and harden people. You have to do something like fraud to get the prison sentence usually. Licence violations rarely produce such a result. Which is pretty much the same as personal copyright infringement. It's an odd case you'll get a prison sentence for downloading movies - there would have to be some special circumstances attached. Generally you get a fine, same as the companies that do it.

>>"You distributed to 10,000 people so it should be dealt with the same as selling 10,000 physical copies."

Obviously this would be bad. Or maybe it's not obvious, so the reasons it's bad are broadly speaking (a) you are not the only seeder / participant. It's a collective act you are participating in so if 10,000 people downloaded from you, you're still not responsible for 10,000 actual distributions. You have facilitated that number so you still share a portion of the blame, but it wont be one for one. (b) It would be trivially easy for someone to go far beyond their ability to provide redress. A £5,000 fine is a very nasty thing but it's something you can overcome. Even for those on low-income. Courts set repayments at a level that typically you can afford. You'll be regretting it every time you pay your £15 part-payment, but it's not going to destroy your life. Charing 10,000 x £15 per movie - yes, that would. And what you want to achieve is stopping people doing this and some restitution for damages, not destroy lives. So just like your participation in the piracy was only a part of it, so your part in repayment should be only part of it.

And I think, to some extent, that's where we're going. The talk of ten year sentences is highly unrepresentative. That's for massive commercial scale piracy, really.

>>"It is like allowing all your friends to copy the CD you just bought from the market stall, but on a larger scale"

And that's essentially why things are changing. Piracy types used to be some Del Boy type at the market flogging home copies... And it was fought as such. A copper might nick the seller, they'd get a fine typically. Wash and repeat. But now you get people able to do the same thing from home on a vastly larger scale and sometimes not even thinking of it as theft. Actions which are only mildly damaging when done occasionally, can be a major problem when done on the large scale. People used to have home fires in London when their were fewer houses there. As times changed, London became so bad that you got "pea soupers" where people would actually die prematurely from how bad the smog was. So the law shifted and you got the Clean Air act. It seems to me that piracy law is settling towards punishments being worse than shop-lifting due to the distribution aspect of torrenting, but not crippling in degree. Though obviously the ceiling is pretty high for the big commercial pirates or those who are First Sources for content.

Pretty much. If you are some regular, small scale home downloader who logs on, gets a movie they want and stops their torrenting afterwards, you'll likely get something a little bit more than going into a shop and stealing those movies. Your first instinct is to think that the fines you've heard of are a lot more but then realize that when was the last time you heard of someone only ever having downloaded one movie or song, instead of a dozen or more? Twenty... thirty movies. That actually adds up to quite a lot of shoplift equivalents.

But in the example you talk of, seeding a library of movies 24/7 on a fat pipe, sure - you could well find yourself facing a £5k slap down for it because you've been effectively distributing, not just stealing.

h4rm0ny "what is this kidding you speak of?" uh... h4rm0ny.

Re: When is theft not theft?

As with many things, technology results in old definitions no longer being the best definitions. When that definition was created, there was no such thing as digitally reproducing content exactly the same, because there was no digital content. The "permanently deprive the owner of it" was simply a way of distinguishing it from cases where the taker was going to or did return the property afterwards. Something that I don't believe ever happens with illegal downloads. This hang-up some people have with the word is pretty much only done as a deflection tactic from criticism.

Also, the word predates legal definitions. If you want to pretend every time someone uses a word they're using a term from English law, go ahead. But you know that they wont be.

You ignore the second part of the paragraph where the artist says despite repeatedly issuing take-down requests, their material keeps getting put back up by people and shared.

If their sales were down AND their material were not being pirated, that would indicate interest had dropped. If the sales drop and piracy of their material has risen as in this case, that indicates something else. Not every downloaded song or movie is a lost sale, but it's absurd to suggest that many aren't and that active piracy of a piece of content doesn't indicate interest in it.

Depends how you do it. If you download a copy from some site the damages will be calculated according to the price of that item, plus similar fines as you would get for physical. But if you torrent it, you are also distributing it to many other people and aiding others in piracy. That is where the difference creeps in.

Re: 10 years...

But the vast majority of cases will not get anything like that. That upper limit is for big commercial scale pirates. Whereas for manslaughter you're not going to find the majority cases result in a fine of a few hundred or a thousand quid.

One of the largest piracy convictions ever was the owner of iBackups.net, Nathan Peterson who got 7.5 years. He was running a massive online operation which traded around $20 million dollars in pirated software alone. 7.5 years. So it's not accurate to make casual comparisons between manslaughter and piracy based on the maximum possible sentence - that's Daily Mail style journalism.

Re: The term "pirate" is a propaganda coup

The same reasoning would lead to burglary being a civil matter where the victim should bring charges privately against the thieves (which they presumably tracked down themselves), It's only your personal views on intellectual property over physical that lead to you drawing a distinction - logically your reasoning would actually apply to both.

And investigating and tracking down pirates is very difficult and many times more difficult still when you're a private entity rather than law enforcement who has the investigatory powers needed. Do you want only giant corporations to have the power to track down and seek redress whilst small content producers are powerless?

Re: 10 years...

>>"Yeah, but as we know from the 80's, home taping is killing music"

It's a little hypocritical of the 80's to accuse anything else of killing music. They did a good enough job of it themself.

Re: BBC thread

Some of the comments that I've seen before they are censored have to do with Apple avoiding tax, so some of the removals may be due to that. The BBC, I think, try to steer clear of content in the comments that they think might be litigious, maybe.

Re: BBC thread

You're right - I just had a look over there and about a third of the comments seem to be moderated out! I just put in my own comment just to see whether it would be censored or not. Even amongst the surviving posts though, this seems to be getting a largely negative reaction.

This is fascinating. Oddly enough, I pretty much NEVER criticize modern tech. I argue a fair bit on these forums but (and people can check if they don't believe me), it is almost always in defence of something rather than actively criticizing someone's hard work (which most technology is). About the only exception that comes to mind is systemd.

And yet this iWatch is a rare exception. Technologically, I guess it has its impressive aspects, but honestly, I find I just don't like it. I think it's badly misconceived and flawed.

I'm buying one! I'm going to wear it with my Google Glass and with the Zune clipped to my waist.

I will look so cool!

>>"Secondly Poettering and co. seem to have taken a liking to the Windows registry and are hell bent on imposing that way of working. i.e. the binary logs and so on."

Ha! It's far worse than that. What systemd does is create an inferior version of the Windows registry. Top that for a bad idea! :D

MS have had two decades to hammer the registry into something serviceable. It ties into Windows ACLs for security and it's also optional for developers as .NET applications have an XML format for their configuration that is (I think) preferred. Poettering is trying to create a Windows XP version of the registry! Think about that for a moment and feel afraid.

To me it's like Saruman looking across to Mordor in envy and trying to create his own little dark tower in emulation. The only difference being one continues to wear the white robes of Open Source whilst they lock everything down and breed orcs. "One startup process to rule them all, one startup process to find them..."

>>"How does this change affect users like me who aren't likely to be overly concerned about what's going on in the background as long as it does what it's supposed to?"

It may well not affect you directly as an end-user (though it would make debugging your system yourself much more tricky). But it drags everything in that it touches making itself a requirement for more and more every month. It's now pretty much reached the point where it's a core and unremovable component. And that's dangerous. I forsee it becoming a big and ugly tangle that does GNU/Linux considerable harm in the long-run.