Re: Remind me
Sony execs are rich enough to buy politicians. The law does not apply to them.
Don't buy Sony.
3055 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
Sony execs are rich enough to buy politicians. The law does not apply to them.
Don't buy Sony.
Reads more like he was mugged.
No. But Facebook does.
Not that I agree with the vigilantism. But what does one do when the police refuse to act on evidence of a crime, and you have gone as far as to give them the GPS co-ordinates of the culprit? A face-to-face could end badly and contacting them? That just prompts them to wipe the HDD.
(Taking the blog at face value - the whole thing could be a hoax).
Ah - ok. Looks like "Plumper" is the thief then.
If it's portable, put a tracker on it. There are many available (e.g. Prey). However, as this software becomes prevalent the first thing any thief will do is nuke-and-pave the storage. Tracking gone. This leaves hardware as the only viable option (unless UEFI can somehow be used to protect an area of their drive and the software runs there - dunno).
You also have to make it easy for the thief to use the stolen item. So consider having a "Guest" account or something that will auto-login after 30 secs or so. If the thief is thwarted by a strong password, they'll just wipe it.
And encrypt at least your home partition ("Documents and Settings"; whatever).
Finally, back-ups. If you lose a portable device, all you should lose is a copy (or the last few hours/days work); you should not lose everything. The number of people who use their laptops as a primary store is depressing.
So if I have (say) 60GB in DropBox and my HDD dies....how long does it take me to download my back-ups? How do I store my configuration settings and related data? How do I ensure sensitive information is encrypted prior to upload*? How do I manage the keys for the encryption?
Or, in other words, the "cloud" is not a back-up you pillocks!
*If you are putting any data in Dropbox unencrypted and it is in any was sensitive, private or confidential; you are a class-A idiot.
Download? Wait, what? In the discussion about Netflix streaming, the group-think was that always-on mobiles negated the use for downloads.
So is El Beeb behind the times, or just acknowledging the fact that mobile coverage is shit/expensive?
I go for the contract. £8 a month (inc. voice, texts and data) with a phone? Why yes, thank you.
Much better than the £40-ish the article states. I'd only pay that if I was getting rid of the landline, but the one gets skinned alive for international calls.
Really need to setup VOIP at home.
Given the billions Vodafone saved in the dodgy deal with Hartnett, seems to me they can easily afford to kill quite a few falcons.
Or, you know, as many temporary transmitters as it takes (with billions to spate).
Is it so hard to copy and paste a URL? Personally I block those "Share" buttons to cut down on the spying and tracking.
@Charles 9 - Cobblers. Ubuntu (to pick just one of the many non-free distros) contains blobs OOTB.
The "non-free" codecs thing is down to how they are licensed. Not their freedom (or lack thereof). It can depend on the nature of the distro and where they are based. Mint, for example, installs them by default.
Because the content owners are stuck in 1960.
I think the short answer is "makes it incompatible". To comply with the GPLv3, the decrypt keys would need to be provided with the source...unless there was some way to securely download them...but then that mechanism would need to be public, so.... Once the keys are known...all bets are off.
However, to be provided in a GNU/Linux distro the plugin/whatever does not have to be GPL compliant. It can just be a binary blob. Nothing to stop someone like Canonical writing said blob and supplying it; "Ubuntu, now with Netflix!" Of course, each distro would need to write their own blob(s) or Netflix would need to provide it (and it sounds like they want to get out of that).
Note: I am not a GPL or crypto expert - if someone else has more knowledge (and can cite sources), please do so.
I don't think that's the case. The "we only do streaming" is probably an easier sell to the backwards content owners.
"It would seem everyone in the universe you're looking for speaks Norwegian."
Hold on there, I've got enough issue with English! :-)
Actually, picking up a second language and exiting the UK seems to be the only real option.
"West Country by any chance?"
Nup. Central England. It's a joke. I've looked for new jobs (not too fussed on location) and it's all the same. I'd be better off driving trains or something.
That circa £37k. Really? In what bloody universe? If you tell me, I'll move there to get the pay raise (not the annual 2% cut I've been suffering).
Buy a DVD player that ignores region?
I have no issue with the regions as language packs; but the lock pisses me off something shocking.
JDX - well said that person.
I am not going to claim innocence, and I still use "illegal" sites...but for one use case...when the DRM or other restrictions stop me from easily using what I have paid for.
I gave them my money and they give me pain.
E.g. iPlayer on VirginMedia doesn't list films, so if I want to catch up on a film I missed I need to drag out a PC. WTF?
Their PVR has no web UI. Really? This is 2013! So when I record a programme but want to watch it on the PC I download it, watch, then delete the recording.
Some DVDs refuse to rip easily (Dark Knight is a bugger), so buy the DVD and then download to get it on the media server.
All this is content I have paid for one way or another yet am blocked from using it. I own hundreds of DVDs etc...but I'd still be called a pirate.
Use more F/OSS and say "Sod off" to the BSA.
"I definately agree that the more you use the roads, the more you should pay."
And amazingly we already have this. It's called "fuel duty". No need for a gross invasion of people's privacy, no need for a massive electronics network, no need to fit something-else-that-breaks to a vehicle. It's collected at point of use, and the more you use the more you pay. Simples.
The Tories and Labour would cream their pants for a system like this. Never mind the further gouging of the motorist, they'd be able to award big, fat PFI contracts to their buddies and gain themselves some nice directorships.
Hopefully the devs can get some love from the F/OSS community.
Or another employer.
OS version does not always match kernel version; who knew?
...you'll make that turd shine one day.
It's called "cost externalisation"; from banks to movie studios, the big corporates do it all the time.
"[Pearson] said farmers with nothing to hide have nothing to fear".
And that's where he fails - hard. We can get into a debate about where the suffering of an animal trumps one's right to privacy (and I tend to agree with that) but the ALA does not have a societal mandate to determine when this should apply. We have courts etc for this.
You are confusing theft with copyright infringement, they are not the same.
Minor flaw. What if the rights-holder of the orphaned work didn't want it used for that purpose? Say Nestle, Coca-Cola or some other company that the rights-holder disagrees with on moral grounds used it? Should it be down to money to balance out any perceived harm?
The actual answer is far, far simpler. If you cannot identify the rights-holder or get a license from them, don't use the asset. End of.
Or people could stop being ass-hats.
"Did you get permission from the photographer/artist/writer/other for that asset we wanted for the big promo?"
"Unfortunately not, couldn't find out who created it."
"Dammit. Oh well, go for the second choice then; we know who did that one."
Bingo, bango, bongo; no one has to pay anything to some central authority.
Yes mistakes will happen, but that's still preferable to the alternative.
...if you are putting it on-line, you tag it within the image itself.
Not a perfect solution either, but better than relying on easily removed meta-data. Many sites, newspapers and magazines will crop or obscure the tag, and then you probably have a case for wilful infringement.
Vasilenko's attitude seems to be fairly Creative-Commons; good to see.
As for the authorities being on the side of BBC and Sky...well what do you expect? It's the same deal as the MPAA, RIAA, BPI etc; the big corporates can afford better bribes...err...lobbying.
But, do the advertise it as "unlimited"?
If they say something like "full-speed with a data cap" or "max-speed with fair use policy" then that's fine. At least you know what you are getting.
I wish I could upvote more than once.
I totally agree. And this reminds me, I really must look into a quality of service system so I can stay below the limits of my unlimited service. :-S
"the Office XML formats of which are an open standard that are supported"
Apart from the fact they are not open, they are infected with patents and one can't implement MS's format without infringing on MS's patents. Patents MS has licensed in such a way as to make it hard (nay, impossible) for F/OSS to fully support.
MS also deliberately mis-implemented the ODF standard to break compatibility with Libre/Open Office. Their code was free to read, MS could have made sure they used the same/compatible implementation; but no. They had to make sure it would not work.
For many the other products are superior (or, at least) equal; but the lock-in MS retains prevents any real competition or choice.
MS are not open, they are not to be trusted. Ever.
"They are effectively promoting an operating system which they actually CAN'T put monitoring stuff into."
Why does everyone think that just because the Linux kernel is F/OSS that everything that runs on it is also F/OSS. nvidia drivers anyone?
It would not be beyond the wit of the Chinese to include binary blobs. Want to connect to the Internet? First the closed-source blob must authenticate that it is running and correctly filtering/reporting on you.
One could remove the blob, of course, but then the authorities just have to detect that fact and kick your door down for trying to undermine the glorious Party.
They don't have to do anything to the kernel, the kernel is irrelevant; it's what Canonical help then include in userland that should worry you.
Ubuntu is not entirely open source unlike, say, Trisquel. Canonical would have no problem including binary blobs that spy on users.
They pretty much do this themselves!
China owns the UK. Then again, they own the USA too; so what do they have to fear from their serf nations?
It's not limiting your freedoms (yet) but enabling the freedoms of others to be limited is not good. The tools the Chinese develop and add in will no doubt be picked up by other states and used to monitor their citizenry. You only have to look at what Obama is doing in the USA to see what a hard-on they'd have for a "national OS" with built-in spyware.
All to protect freedom, you understand.
Google userd to offer a good service. That's why they got traction, but like many companies they are now going for lock-in i.e. proprietary APIs etc. That's evil right there.
It's also an admission that they cannot compete on ability, and not competing on ability is fundamentally bad for the consumer and for the user.
Go to Apple.
Put in a town or city name or post code.
What comes up? A bunch of links and, more importantly, an Apple map.
There may be other mapping services available, but who's going to look at those when they can just click on the first offering available?
*That* is a clear abuse of Apple's...wait a minute...an Apple map?...nah...no one would be that stupid...?
"All users of any search engine sign up to be data-mined."
Almost all users of any search engine sing up to find stuff, they do not care about privacy until too late. Just like users of social networks. Who's the product? You are, bitch.
Google is a monopoly. Yes, Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo all exist; but at 90% use Google is a monopoly.
If Google are favouring their own offerings over others, then that is monopoly abuse and they should be punished. Heavily.
If Google are not favouring their own offerings, but their own offerings happen to be better than rivals' and thus linked to/quoted more which makes it appear higher in the results...well...that's just tough.
Personally I try to avoid using Google and any Google service as I view them like a metastasised cancer; little tendrils and nodes all over the 'Net doing goodness knows what and none of it good for you. I never even use "google" as a verb; one does not "google that", one "web searches". Google, like MS, are a monopoly and never to be trusted.
How quaint. I guess some folk just love being data-mined.
Why did you not provide any details on who to call?