Posts by Charles 9

Re: Defeating Draconian laws

Except, one, consider tight data caps, and two, what if the cops confiscate your pad...BEFORE you can use it?

Re: Bah!

"Imagine not only having to follow a truck, but never being able to pass because there are six of the buggers driving nose-to-tail. I predict this will result in fatalities and backlash."

Given the size of your average convoy (to the point there's a whole bloody song about it), you're not thinking big enough (and no, no one wants to slip between the trucks of a regular convoy unless they have to--too risky).

Re: Got rid of mine...

How rainy or snowy is it in your area? Given England's notorious weather (not to mention other areas' propensities for cyclones, tornadoes, blizzards, etc.), being forced to bike around during a downpour is not my idea of a good time.

Re: The part they missed asking

I think what they're saying is that the answer may well be, "No, but ONLY if I can hire an EMPTY one."

Re: Asking people if they're willing to share

Soluble you say? How long have we dealt with butts on the sidewalk and gum hidden on the handrails?

Re: Amazing

"Seeing as the system has to be told the moves that were made to scramble it, I too would be able to write a program that used this information to "solve" it - by reversing those moves. Does this now qualify me as an expert in "Artificial /intelligence" or is this just another example of the worthless hype trying to equate algorithms with sentience?"

You're saying this as if a human who's never seen the Rubik's Cube before can come across a scrambled cube and, completely unprompted, can figure out the purpose AND solve it. As most things go, even humans need directions.

Re: (Easily) Replaceable batteries FTW

As I recall, most battery controversies these days (iPhones, Galaxy Notes) have centered around SEALED batteries. As in, protection electronics seem to short out no matter where you put them. That to me is a case for keeping the battery (a confirmed fire risk) separate and removable from the unit. Bulging batteries (a warning sign you can't see if the battery is sealed) can be removed and replaced BEFORE they actually catch fire.

Re: Pointing people at the right forum reduces cobwebs

"Whoever they payed."

(ahem, PAID) Most people didn't PAY for Linux. That's kinda the point. And their tech support's probably their relative who's working 8 days a week and only comes to visit once every few months.

"What I object to, is wanting professional support for free. You don't get that with Windows or OSX, I don't see why they should expect it in Linux."

Last I checked, both had support forums which ARE free AND which do get actual employees responding to request. It's supposed to be good for business since it discourages defections and collateral damage. That's the kind of expectations they're seeking, regardless of the costs of the OS (after all, Google's stuff is free--look at it from the POV of the clueless end user).

"The people in the forums are donating their time for free and are not paid to be there."

No, they're investing in customer loyalty in order to discourage defections and collateral damage.

Re: Who f***ing cares?

And if he's your ONLY option, as in beggars can't be choosers?

Re: Pointing people at the right forum reduces cobwebs

Now ask. Who's the manufacturer for Linux? Now do you see why everyone's looking around?

Re: Can we eliminate operator cruft this way ?

You've never used it internationally then, have you? Being able to call home without incurring international rates simply by using a hotspot (especially when the destination number will ONLY talk to a domestic number), at no additional charge, has saved my bacon on more than one occasion.

And no PBX required. No third-party subscriptions. And I can still use my root-aware apps.

PS. You still haven't replied re: visual voicemail, which is ALWAYS carrier-specific because voicemail runs on carrier servers. I've yet to see an MVNO that allows Visual Voicemail (because 9 times out of 10 they don't allow call forwarding, either, preventing third-party voicemails from working).

Re: Security should be commensurate with the consequences.

"IMHO, to be blunt, if you want to play with Big Boy Data, then it's your balls on the chopping block if you don't properly secure it. If that's too difficult for your organization, then maybe your organization is in the wrong business. We need laws that punish with a severity based on impact. Maybe then a few more companies will take security seriously."

You forget that one of the jobs of business (especially corporations, who do this by design) is to deflect risks. That includes legal risks. Laws? Pay off legislators to keep that from happening. If that doesn't work, play sovereignty against them and move to a more lax country. Extreme end, probably take the Shadowrun route and become sovereign. Same for financial risks: a little bribe can go a long way, and if persuasion doesn't work, move up to intimidation. And all this can likely be had for less than the cost of actually doing it right.

Re: Oh really?

"Is that copy DRM-free such that it can be freely and legally copied when the copyright expires?"

Jury's out, but I think they CAN compel copyright holders to provide a means to unlock locked content as and when necessary since their remit means they must be able to ACCESS it on demand.

Re: Slaughtering the golden goose as usual

"We only got to the scale we have today because the Net was open and accessible to all."

That's arguable. Some would say it was the commercial interests that drew the masses to the web in the first place: turn the Web into the next Sears Catalog, for example. Well, that and porn, of course.

Point is, money still talks, so if you tried to keep the Web open, commercial interests would simply "fork you" and go their own way, like they have with Flash and so on. Even if Flash were to disappear, they'll just enforce something else in its place, and do you think you have the cojones to take on the mass of customers that regularly use Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc.? IOW, what you describe would happen anyway, only in a different way, and since the masses follow the commercial interest...well, let's just say, you're outvoted.

"The next step is self-evident: prioritisation of DRM content. Bye bye Net neutrality."

Google has already shown the way to beat Net Neutrality: private nets. As soon as it's financially worthwhile to do it, all the big Net companies will start deploying private nets to shortcut their way around the Net. Net neutrality soon becomes inapplicable because they can bypass most of the Net. Why do you think the likes of DHL, UPS, and FedEx keep their own vehicle fleets? Same thought process.

Re: Can it be turned off?

No, because the First Amendment in this case falls to the content creators themselves (IOW, the people who WANT DRM). Not only that, but Copyright IS a congressional mandate under Article I, Section 8, so establishing rules concerning copyright IS a direct federal responsibility.

IOW, the law's on big media's side, not ours.

Re: Oh really?

"...while if you rely on copyright you have to sell at least one high quality version of the content to the public via non-DRMed media but you get full copyright privileges / DMCA protection."

Doesn't the Library of Congress fulfill that by its obligation to hold a copy of every American-made work?

Still don't know whether they've actually cracked the system (since we don't know HOW they're doing it) or have sidestepped it perhaps with an insider.

If that were true, we'd already be seeing 4K BluRay rips, but so far the only rips have been web rips. Also haven't heard much about pirated Xbox One or PS4 games. Seems to me the rights holders are doing their homework and finding nigh-bulletproof systems to protect their content, unless you can prove me wrong.

Re: Elephant in the room

What about things like the US Constitution where such grandfathering is strictly forbidden (Article I, Section 9, no retroactive or ex post facto acts allowed)? It would take an Amendment to do that, and Congress is way too divided to agree on anything enough to get the necessary two-thirds majority. And what kind of crisis can you manufacture to remove the retroactive restriction?

Re: There are bigger fish to fry

Don't give the software makers funny ideas...

Where are the 4K Blu-ray rips, then? All I've seen so far have been Web rips.

Re: Obligatory old geezer aside

Except in this case an inside job would probably be using THE SAME certificate. No help there.

Re: Ruisert

"I too have used CCleaner since the days it was known as CrapCleaner (the name didn't upset its home UK market but was eventually deemed too much for sensitive souls across the Pond) and of course, it isn't malware."

Why didn't they just rename it CrudCleaner? Same implication, cleaner cuss word.

Re: Obligatory old geezer aside

Problem is, a determined ed opponent will simply replace any compromised seals with new ones. Plus tamper-proofing is useless against an insider who can meddle with things PRIOR to them being sealed.

Re: "The dodgy software was signed..."

Certificates can't save you from INSIDERS, and it looks like the build was infected from the inside, BEFORE it was signed.

Re: Doesn't matter

You never heard of a drive-by attack?

Unless you're NOT ALLOWED to add an extra character due to length limits...

If you can't extend the length, your only option is to widen the gamut.

Re: NIST & FCC

But at the same time, you can't make security too hard or people will blow off your hoop-jumping and find ways around you. You have to make it EASY AND SECURE at the same time or you won't be effective.

Re: FIDO/U2F.

Don't you know what the immediate reply would be?

"Oh great, ANOTHER thing to lose...or get STOLEN."

Re: will the rise of the Robots

That's why the quotes. The idea was that these professional musicians couldn't tell the compositions were created by a computer instead of a human. It's not exactly a Turing Test, but it is in the spirit of its purpose.