Re: How long before the 'backdoors' start appearing?
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!
3064 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
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?
Silverlight was just another example of how MS hated open standards and inter-operability.
And still hates them and would do everything in it's power to destroy them.
Never, ever trust MS when it comes to standards.
along with the NHS
Not for much longer - we're bringing in the USA system by the back door. Twice the cost, half the service. But it keeps the PFI contracts rolling and that's what our MPs want as their buddies all have the snouts in the trough.
If you have kids, now is a good time to sit them down and explain to them why their future is screwed.
"unlike other taxes enforced on the population it is not means tested"
Having a TV is not mandatory.
"the money just handed to it on a plate means that the organisation is bloated, wasteful, heavily bureaucratic, institutionalised and, as proven with Jimmy Saville etc hiding a corrupted core in its working practices."
Just like the NHS the Beeb not perfect (e.g. Mid Staffs death scandal), but just like the NHS it's still better than any alternative.
"why should people pay for just having a TV?"
You don't have to. It's quite legal to have a working TV and not pay the license fee. Be prepared for an argument mind you.
"what if they only watch Sky on their TV set?"
Two things. 1) The set is capable of receiving broadcast and is actively being used for same, so needs a license as you could be watching the Beeb; 2) Sky is orders of magnitude worse than the BBC.
The NHS is being ripped apart and replace with something worse, more expensive and much more dangerous. Just as the railways were. And you want to offer up the BBC to the same altar?
"As soon as the catch up services are better quality and more reliable" the rules will be changed.
"Types the dude/tte who seems to think that "Anonymous Coward" is it's name."
Oh look everyone, Jake "The Perfect" has to be demoted to Jake "They Like To Think They Are Perfect"!
Jake, don't you proofread? Don't you know that the English language is very exact? It's a precise tool to be wielded deftly and with a delicate touch. '"Anonymous Coward" is [it is] name' what are you wittering on about? "is it is"? Makes no sense. PROOFREAD you fool!
Now I have made my point, I shall let the matter rest.
Hi Jake "The Perfect". So good to hear from you.
I am human, I make mistakes. Unlike Jake "The Perfect", the only human in the history of all creation who has never once made an error. As wise as Solomon? Please. 'As wise and perfect as Jake "The Perfect"' should be the new saying.
I'm not denying my imperfections, I'm taking the piss out of your holier-than-thou attitude. Maybe I should rename you, Jake "The Perfect and Insufferable"?
I see. Jake "The Perfect" is shall now call thee. He of unerring perfection and exactitude. He who has never stumbled over of a word, taken a wrong turn, forgotten to flush before closing a file or otherwise made any error or misstep from the moment of his conception.
Really Jake, get over yourself. You are coming across as a total ass.
Drop the holier-than-thou attitude.
I'm using a mobile. Swipe it's a much faster than finger pecking and less likely to give misspellings; but mistakes happen and on the mobile site there's no opportunity to edit.
Bloody swipe entry. "Near" was what I meant.
But still a good idea. I would be very uncomfortable being breast anyone wearing a pair. I have no idea what they are recording (audio and video), I have no idea I'd some facial recognition had tagged me. So I have no idea if my current conversation is going global.
What I do in public is not a secret, but it can still be private. One can discuss even fairly sensitive things in public as your anonymity protects you. Google glasses remove that, and it's only when it's gone will we realise what we have lost.
If you have physical possession of your stuff on some media, but it is has a Digital Repression Mechanism (DRM) then it's still not your stuff. Someone will decide when you can see what you paid for. if they are on-line. If the keys are not revoked. If you don't change your PC too much. If your OS is supported. If...
ps Be careful with spelling mistakes or Jake "The Perfect" will get you. :-)
You friend Adam was walking through the square and his Google Glasses tagged you in a romantic embrace with someone who was not your wife. Here's the top ten list of divorce lawyers in your area..."
You asked for alerts on Bill from our social feed. Bill was tagged by Charlie (not in your circles) passed out and vomiting on the pavement just outside a bar. Here is a top ten list of employment lawyers that you associated with this alert."
Adam (not in your circles) tagged Charlie in a romantic embrace with someone that was not you. Here's the top ten list of divorce lawyers in your area..."
You appear to be passed out and drunk on the pavement. Here is the nearest AA meeting <details> and here is the top ten list of employment agencies in your area...you're going to need them!"
Seriously...Google Glasses are a threat to our anonymity, our privacy (even in a public place) and our society. "Don't be evil" my arse. Google are now a greater threat than MS and FB combined.
But Microsoft do not go far enough. Azure should also be banned. And Office365. And Outlook.com. And anything else that goes against the ethos of cooperation and the sharing of knowledge.
After all, we should educate children about IT, not turn them into gormless button mashers.
I look forward to MS ceasing all work with schools. For the sake of the children. :-)
Why not read the story I linked to?
1) It's not piracy. It's not theft. It's copyright infringement.
2) No, the consumer was lied to. They were sold beef that was actually horse. This is fraud. Nothing wrong with selling horse, just call it horse.
So you are conflating a license infringement (which is civil) to bare-faced fraud (which is criminal) in order to make a point. The two are not comparable.
"you're gong to end up with lowest common denominator entertainment."
If that's what the market wants, then that's what the market wants. Thing is, it won't happen. If other sectors we have lowest common denominator products and services (e.g. Budweiser and chain-pubs); we also have other products and services for people who give a shit (e.g. real ale and non-tied pubs).
It's not up to you to decree what the market wants, it's up to the market to decide.
" "I would admit though since signing up for Netflix and Lovefilm the amount of movie piracy I do has taken a massive dive."
So....a service is provided, offering what the consumer wants, at a price the consumer feels is fair...and piracy drops? Well blow me down. If only more people could understand this.
"You might think my house is worth 20p; it doesn't mean I'm obliged to sell it to you for that."
True. But if everyone (are a large enough majority) think your house is worth 20p; guess how much you house is worth? I like to think my house is worth £1Billion. Shame I can't sell it for that, isn't it?
What the RIAA et al are engaged in, is restricting the free market to enforce a cartel. This is not a good idea at all. It prevents free-market economics from being able to set the price. It allows for exploitation of territories through pricing differentials. It prevents the market from exploiting/norming those differentials; which is exactly how lots of businesses operate and is (by-and-large) keeps the market honest (until the lobbyists get involved and block free-trade).
Some infringement is because people are arseholes - true. Not going to argue that. Some infringement is because people are frustrated at the all the restrictions (OS and region locks, non-distribution ect) imposed on them that make it hard/impossible to get the media legitimately. I put it to you that the latter group is probably bigger then the former.
It is interesting that some companies (e.g. HBO) are trying a different tack. Rather than attack the pirates, they seem to be interested in offering a better service (specifically for "Game of Thrones", the most infringed TV series last year). A "build it and they will come" kind of thing. This IMHO is the way forward. Stop wasting the money on the lawyers and lobbying, use it provide a better service.
If my VM images and other related apps don't take minuets to load - when will I make coffee?
"Unfortunately often the way you Linux guys explain things just comes across as rather abrupt and rude."
How many beginners are there? How many "experts"? How long does it take the expert to answer the question? How often will they have to repeat themselves? This is why people are told to RTFM.
Now, if someone comes up and says "See this bit? Why does tar.gz do blah and not blah?" Odds are good they'll get help because that someone has at least put the effort in.
Unfortunately a lot of the documentation is obtuse or out of date. My current favourite example is Canoncial's own documentation on a KVM networking bridge causing the node to lose its network. Now this is community documentation and I could change it but I don't know enough about networking/KVM to understand if this is truly a general issue of the docs, or something peculiar to my set-up.
I'm not even sure where/who I can ask.
>he admitted that he had not "done any analysis"
So he is holding a position without any evidence as to that position's validity.
Has he considered other savings? e.g. due to having healthy hearts, cyclists will need less medical car than a lard-bucket with their Double Gulp driving to the mall. Saved CO2!
(I have done no analysis, but the above is true.)
Yeah, cycling is not zero-impact but then neither is walking. They are both still leagues better than a car.
I made the stupid decision to acquire an Android phone recently. Maybe I was expecting too much, but Google Play sucks (as does the inability to remove any of the default apps - Facebook? Do not want.)
The main annoyance is the permission "App X requires the ability to read all your texts, access your network and rape the family dog." No explanation on why it needs those permissions or any user option to restrict, take it or leave it. By and large I leave it.
Google Play needs to offer a lot more user control. If "Angry Birds" or whatever needs to know about an incoming call, fine. Tell me that. Needs to know about an informing text, fine. Tell me that. Neither of these should grant the app the right to read my texts or find out the numbers; which is what the blurb implies they do.
As the end-user I should have final say. If I remove a permit and break an app, boo-hoo me. It's just an app.
Android can't even sync without you giving all your contact information to Google. Sod that!
Once this contract is up, I'm going back to a feature phone that does not need charged daily. Android is a total waste.
Let's see the MPs lead by example and remove the subsidy from the bars in Westminster.
And the EU stop the subsidised Champagne they have for themselves.
And stop serving £100+ bottles of wine at various parliamentary junkets.
Yeah - like that will happen. It'll be one rule for them, and one rule for us. As always.
There's a reason Osbourne wants mega-corporates to pay 5% tax (or less) and high street shops to pay 30%. His friends don't run high street shops.
The number of known exploits is irrelevant as Linux is developed publicly and openly admits its faults; NTKRNL is developed in secret and no one knows how many exploits it has.
GNU/Linux also does not usually have too many services enabled by default, so is harder to exploit. Windows however sacrifices security and needs to be heavily locked down, often requiring third party software at extra cost.
As for experimental file systems, ext4 is no experiment. There are others, we give you choice, unlike other OSs.
The cloud? Sure, if you can guarantee that you will always have a high speed, low latency connection;off you go with no local storage.
The server-client paradigm is as old as the hills, yet we keep making the same mistakes.
Shame about the OEM. Is the included rootkit GPL?
Or will Sony start moaning about Firefox OS being MPL?
And will they respect the license, or get caught like they did BusyBox?
Then tried to create a new project kill BusyBox off.
Hell, this movie didn't even play on some distros when it came out.
The clue that "Dark Knight" is an issue might come from the fact that I said "I normally rip the DVD to a server". As in "I have done this before, I know what I'm doing".
Next time, do a little bit of research before posting based on ignorance and assumption.
The price the infringers are setting is 0.00, that's not the market. Just because there is theft we do not say the market has set a price of 0.00 for beans.
At least shops do not externalise their costs like the RIAA, what with new laws etc.
So what is the market price? Depends. That might be £15 for the latest Hollywood offering, or it might be £0.50. The cost of the movie is not the customer's concern. Me, I pay £5-£10 for a movie, but I don't buy on release day.
I deliberately pay more to people who play fair. So "The Tunnel" got £15.
Do not think for one second that just because I am pro-free market, pro-global market and anti-artificial barriers, anti-protectionism; that I in some way want things for nowt.
Can't use Blu-Ray so, meh. Stuck.
"Region locks and regional licensing aren't there to stop me and you getting stuff at the "price the market sets" "
Of course they are. If I buy a region 1 DVD, it won't play in my region 2 player. This allows a different price to be enforced for different markets, rather than let the market determine its own price (and there will always be variation due to shipping etc).
"because the price we pay correlates very closely with the cost of production."
Except it when it doesn't. Which is why the UK (to name one) pays much more for good than (say) the USA, even thought they get made in China. Case in point, I import my own parts from the USA (even though they come from Japan); I save about a third off the UK price after freight and taxes. This is apparently "OK" and makes me a savvy shopper. But if I tried it with movies...OH NOES!...DOOM!...I am in breach of copyright!....I am by-passing technological measures!....The humanity!
"Because "the market" is very different for people on a nice 20k+ a year wage and the poor sods who make our trainers for £1 a day."
Quite correct, which is why the market should be allowed to set it's prices. Any artificial disparity will be re-set by people exploiting the differential. Oh wait, no it won't; that's now illegal. Ask CD-Wow. Also, if the local price turns out to be too high in some regions, the choice is quite stark; don't sell in those regions or improve the wages so the goods are be affordable (yes, this will raise prices here but that's OK, it means we won't be having our cheap goods subsidised by someone else's suffering; also, it will aid local producers).
"Spiderman Umpteen is the true value of Spiderman Umpteen. Maybe it's crap overhyped blockbuster sh!te, but it's still an expensive production."
So what? If you can't sell it at the unit price you made it you know what happens? You go out of business. Simple. Perhaps a few loses and bankruptcies might focus their minds slightly, and give the decent indy producers a chance.
"American film studios would not be able to afford to sell at the street price for Ougadougou the world over"
Umm...no. Because languages do vary, so there is a natural barrier right there. I have no issue with a DVD clearly having a "region" to declare what languages it contains. I object to the lock.
"Spiderman Umpteen might be good for developing countries as they could instead build their own film industries and stop exporting their cash to rich US conglomerates, but that's a different issue"
No, it's the same one, It's called "free trade". The current system, along with price fixing, tries to enforce the status quo. That's fine for us fat, white Westerners; it's a bit of a shit for the 6 billion other folks on the planet.
"The producer offers, the consumer accepts or rejects."
You have that backwards. The consumer offers. The seller has to choose whether or not they accept.
"Part of what they offer is the DRM, region locking etc, and that is the producer's prerogative.
So they next time I can't pull a movie off a DVD onto a HDD so I can watch it, I should return it for a refund? I'm trying not to infringe, I'm trying to support the products I like, they are making it harder and harder for me to do so.
And how can I tell in advance if I can use it? Looks like CD/DVD, says it's a CD/DVD...why it contains a rootkit or dodgy tracks that make is dangerous/near impossible to use.
"But nobody seriously describes IP infringement as a legitimate "market force"."
No one has. All I have moaned about are artificial barriers to free trade. i.e. market control, which isn't very capitalist. You know "capitalism", that thing that's supposed to allow us all to be free too compete?
"stuff is worth what people are willing to pay for it"
I think you'll find that's called "free market economics". If you don't like the price the market sets, you do not have the right to interfere in said market and create artificial barriers (e.g. region locks) to try and get the price you want (which is what the RIAA, BPI et al try and do).
"if it's not packaged exactly how you want it you'll get it for free anyway"
If it's packaged in a way that make it difficult for me to use, I have been driven very close to infringing. It's not always obvious that one is purchasing a what is in effect defective product.
"Do you steal dented tins from supermarkets?"
Infringement != stealing. Which is why we call one "infringement" and the other "stealing".
That anti-infringement stuff does my head in "You wouldn't steal a purse...."
And I won't infringe on your copyright either. Which is why I paid for the bloody film! Now get off my TV and let me watch my film!
Or use a player that skips it.
CPRM? Customer Punishment and Restriction Mechanism?
A few weeks ago I wanted to watch "Dark Knight". The DVD had been sitting on the shelf for quite a while. I don't have a DVD player in the lounge, I normally rip the DVD to a server and then watch it over the network (which lets me view it in the lounge, office, bedroom, garden etc). Could I get the movie on to the server? Only with a lot of frustration.
It would have been easier to torrent the movie or go for an illegal download.
So this thing I had given good money to purchase and done my bit to support the industry was actively trying to make my life difficult. I don't condone infringement, but sometimes...it's just easier even when you have paid for the blasted thing!
Yet another Digital Repression Mechanism.
Like its own rootkit?
Stakeholders? I take it they mean "Everyone except the customer. Screw the customer, just give us direct access to their wallets."
Isn't that entrapment?
You are a content creator, you are not who the RIAA are here to protect. In fact, they would probably go after you as your free approach denies some of their members the chance to charge.
The RIAA are here to protect large movie studios (who deny actors, writers etc a fair share of profits through false accounting), not to defend content creators.
So the RIAA would be better of in campaigning for more copyright harmony and helping form a truly global market?
Not going to happen with that dinosaur defender.