Re: Misses the point
Yes, but if someone tortures information out of me, I know about it. (Else it's not going to work as torture). There's a value in knowing whether your messages have been compromised all of itself.
4313 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
Yes, but if someone tortures information out of me, I know about it. (Else it's not going to work as torture). There's a value in knowing whether your messages have been compromised all of itself.
It's normally polite to apologise if one farts. Or at least it used to be. But it was also presumed people couldn't help it. So why is it considered not rude to release even stronger and more persistent offensive smells that you don't have to? Seems a poor argument by comparison to me - if anything it highlights that vaping IS rude.
At the time I post this, the opening comment is at 80 down and 90 up. That alone indicates that vaping bothers people. I certainly know that I find it very unpleasant to be inhaling clouds of scented nicotine gas from people in an office with me. If it clearly bothers people as much as this - approximately 50% of people just reading this comments section find it offensive, then there is sufficient reason for it to be banned.
>>"My understanding of Mr Slater's creative input was from this 2011 article where he describes leaving his camera on a tripod for a moment and unexpectedly discovering that the animals were using it, taking 100s of photos. He gives a different account later, saying he trained and coaxed them."
They're not different accounts, they're accounts of two different events. The one you refer to is that the monkeys were fiddling around with his camera, intrigued by seeing their reflection in the glass. After this happened, David Slater later set up the camera with the intent of getting them to trigger it themselves, picking out an appropriate lens, putting it on suitable settings, attaching it to a tripod which he remained close to steady and also did the selection and post-work (creative inputs by themselves). It's not changing his story, it's bad reporting conflating two separate incidents. Probably because when this story first broke, a tale of the monkey's running off with his camera and him later finding these photos sounded more entertaining to the journalists or editors.
I think it's generally agreed that you don't get a new copyright by sticking something into a photocopier. Well, most "photography" isn't much different from photocopying.
Massive ignorance on display here. Ignorance of the details of this case and ignorance of photography in general. Study the subject a little before making such stupid statements.
Accidentally and in a public place? Probably not. However, there was little accidental about this photo. The photographer went to a lot of effort financially and creatively to set it up in the hopes of getting one of the monkeys to trigger it and for that to result in a good photograph.
>>Please explain to me what is Marxist about PETA?
Their membership on the whole. They have a very heavy overlap with the extreme Left, core support in Antifa (who again need not be communist but largely are).
>>But I am tired of people using "Marxist" to mean "something indefinite I personally dislike
I'm not and largely don't. However, the GP called them that and I'm just observing that in my experience they actually largely are. It's nothing inherent to PETA's mandate that is Marxist. And certainly nothing to do with Animal Rights as I am a supporter of Animal Rights and am pretty Right Wing. But PETA membership heavily slants that way, ime.
>>"To alter your question... If *I* push the ball down the slope, do I own the copyright, or does the person/monkey who setup the camera?"
It follows creative intent and input. If someone set up some gorgeous shot with a micro-camera of the ball-bearing down on the camera and you merely pushed the ball at some arbitrary time, then clearly the angles, the exposure, plus any post-work such as selection, cropping, colour balance, et al. are all the work of the photographer. They supplied the creative input and intent. This is especially the case if you didn't know about the camera or - as in the monkey's case - didn't know what it was and the exposure, lens, flash, et. al had all been chosen for you.
If your pushing the ball had some creative intent or value. E.g. you saw a woodlouse walking across the path of the ball right in front of the camera and you timed it so that the woodlouse looked up in horror as the ball-bearing rolled towards it Indiana Jones style, then you would have grounds to claim copyright, barring contractual agreements otherwise.
Copyright is to preserve intent and creative input.
I made the same decision over it. I used to contribute yearly to Wikipeda until this. I actually went as far as contacting them to let them know why and got a rather high-handed, morally superior response WIKIsplaining to me why there was no copyright on the picture. An explanation that ignored the actual facts of the matter, as it happens.
A blackly comic note to this would be that if PETA were to win this, then all those Wikimedia proponents who argued that they didn't have to pay licence fees because Slater didn't own the copyright due to the monkey actually being the creator, would now find themselves being sued by PETA for back-usage of the image based on their own arguments.
>>You forgot to say they're also pinko Nazi Commie librul traitors, and any other term you personally don't like.
Ordinarily I'd agree with you challenging someone characterising a group they don't like as "SJW marxists". But honestly this is PETA here and that pretty well describes the majorty of them.
The Wikipedia page on this subject is one of the most obnoxiously smug and faux-neutral things I have ever read. PETA's contention that a monkey owns the copyright is deeply flawed. It would be flawed even were the monkey a human. They present this as an act of will on the monkey's part whilst others present it as simple happenstance rather than intent on the photographer's part. Neither is true.
David Slater travelled around the world specifically for the purpose of nature photography by which he earns his living, spent days being accepted by the monkeys so that they would tolerate his presence. He purchased the equipment, set up the equipment, waited patiently for the right circumstances travelling with the monkeys and deliberately set the camera up so that the monkeys could trigger it. Is copyright not possible on all those nature documentaries where an animal triggers the camera themself? What about where a camera is positioned over a nest or fastened to a bird? Can copyright not exist if the photographer is not physically operating the camera at the time. David Slater went to a LOT of effort to set things up so this would happen. PETA are fanatics who insist animals must be treated as people even to the absurd extent that they must be regarded as taking deliberate, informed actions when obviously they do not - such as the monkey triggering the camera.
Also, as any photographer will tell you, taking a picture is hardly the beginning and end of the work. David Slater went through all the photographs to select appropriate ones (how many of a monkey's feet and leaves do you think were also taken?), cropped and positioned the photograph, did post-work on the photograph (which is an artistic and technical skill in itself), publicised the photograph. I can guarantee that if it were just some raw original with no work by himself, it would not look remotely as good. Copyright covers any creative input to a work, not just clicking a camera button.
But other than that, no, let's assign copyright to a monkey that pressed a button. And that tapir that wandered through a photography trap at night so we could get some wildlife photography of them in their natural habitat? Better track it down and give it a copyright entitlement as well.
The work of nature photographers such as David Slater is a huge help to conservation efforts and animal welfare in that it shares with people around the world the beauty and wonder of nature. But it relies on copyright in order to exist. Nobody just gives him money to do this - he earns his living through it. We should be happy that there exist ways of making your living that actually enrich society rather than just everybody being a lawyer for example. Not punishing it and trying to harm nature photography. David Slater actually travelled around the world to photograph these monkeys to help raise awareness that they were in danger. PETA, by trying to take away his livelihood, directly harms his efforts to save the very monkeys they claim to care about.
Fuck Peta, quite frankly. Authorship depends on the creating input and the provided resource to create the work. The photographer provided both, the monkey neither. Signed (in a hopeless attempt to counterbalance the reputation damage PETA's stunt is causing) -- a vegetarian and supporter of animal welfare.
To be fair, I would prefer he had won the presidency. Wouldn't you? :)
>>"Business is not interested in having VPNs outlawed or made less secure."
VPNs will have to have a justifiable purpose. I.e. if you're a business register your VPN connection and why. If you're a domestic home user, you'll need to justify it and furthermore, given that such laws as this will typically be used retroactively to catch people you want to catch rather than be the reason you catch them, showing that you've used it for illegal purposes will be a crime of itself.
Furthermore, a VPN isn't inherently anonymous. It's just often used for that purpose. A business could have a VPN to some other office. It doesn't mean that you can definitely have a VPN to a popular and legal VPN service. Easy enough to declare VPNs for the purpose of anonymising domestic use illegal and leave business needs untouched. Hard to enforce of course, but then that's not the point, is it? The point is that if the eye of Sauron turns in your direction, it has something to pin on you.
EDIT: Can we have an Eye of Sauron icon for state surveillance? Poor Orwell is looking a bit passé these days given by how far we have actually surpassed what he imagined with his concealed telescreens.
So, the UK government wants to do the following:
• Encourage people to hand over credit card details to porn site operators
• Force people to provide socially embarrassing information to untrusted parties.
• Increase overlap between mild non-standard porn and more serious things such as underage porn and snuff porn by making the mild non-standard porn only available from the same illegal sources as others. Much the same way less harmful drugs can be gateways to more harmful drugs because you have to go to the same people due to criminalisation of the former.
• Declare for other people what is and isn't sexual morality for them.
• Make larger and more legitimate porn sites less desirable than smaller and dodgier ones who can flout the laws.
• Perform extensive and intrusive online surveillance to enforce this. (Ostensibly).
N.b. a couple of the above tie into specific implementations. Namely that May's government is very puritan and believes porn itself is morally wrong.
To those simply saying "VPN", they are correct that it will be trivial to avoid this measure but there are a few further things to keep in mind:
• This is one more move in the chess game. That it doesn't mean check does not mean that it isn't an advance by your opponent that has consequences.
• For a police state, everybody must be guilty so that anybody can be charged at any time. Criminalising common behaviour achieves this and as using a VPN to avoid such checks will undoubtedly be illegal, vast swathes of people will suddenly become "guilty" and thus subject to targetting should there be a reason to find something on them later.
• This will later be used as a justification for outlawing / backdooring VPNs because the very obvious next step is to show that VPNs are being used to access "illegal porn". Why is it illegal? Because the government made it so. That is what we are seeing today.
• The government can still go after the porn companies themselves if they do not implement this. Most would to prevent them losing chunks of a large market like the UK. So will those of other countries. Customers using VPNs will only mitigate this somewhat, not prevent it.
Yeah - the point with a scratched record is that it can get stuck in a loop and keep repeating the same bars over and over. A corrupt file just stops.
I'm not sure any single person can be "a women".
I am certain that uniforms influence behaviour of the wearer. Not only the fact of their presence which is trivial to demonstrate affects behaviour, but the style and colour of the uniform. Dress people up like Gestapo and both they and the people they interact with will treat them differently from if their uniform resembled a museum assistant.
Ben Elton once suggested that we should make the police wear pink as it would help make things less confrontational and aggressive.
>>With regard to Windows PowerShell: I must be very, very dumb, because I don't understand it. Or else Windows & MSFT did not ever explain it properly.
What do you mean they didn't explain it properly? They are obviously not going to come around to your house and sit down with diagrams. There are a number of good books and sites on Powershell. Which have you read / frequented? MS provided a lot of resources for those who are interested.
>>I do not know what "very standard object orientated interface and scripting approaches" actually means.
It means they are consistent from tool to tool. So if you want to turn an array of objects to a CSV table (attributes become columns), then you can use ConvertTo-CSV. If you want to convert the array to HTML, you can use ConvertTo-HTML and if you want to convert it to JSON objects you can use ConvertTo-JSON. And that's a trivial example, it goes beyond that into consistency of parameters and usage across a very wide range of tools. So you will see common and consistent parameters across like tools such as -DisplayError. That's what is meant by standardised interface. It means the elements you learn once you can reliably use again elsewhere. Ditto for language syntax.
>>I do remember what I could figure out all by myself: DOS 3 up to DOS 6.22, when the "help system" actually did help
DOS is hardly comparable to Powershell which has features including Exception handling, fan-out remoting and more. Also, DOS never had hover over descriptions of what every command did along with a list of acceptable parameters and their types, iirc.
>>So let me ask you again: What is the "object" of "object oriented programming"? To me it is sheer and utter mean-spirited and unnecessary obfuscation, without any good explanation available anywhere.
Object orientation allows for more flexibility and simplicity. Nearly every part of the Windows OS is exposed as an object. Therefore nearly every part of it can be managed from Powershell scripts. The modularity afforded by object orientation allows easy combining of distinct tools and adherence to the UNIX principle of 'do one thing and do it well'. For example, if I want to output a list of files and their attributes, I can take the output of ls which is an array of file and directory objects and pipe it to a tool such as ConvertTo-CSV and the latter tool will work fine because it simply uses the attributes of the passed in objects. Later, I might want to output a list of security settings and I can pipe it to the same tool (ConvertTo-CSV) and it will all just work because it's arriving as an array of objects just as before. The receiving tool doesn't need to know how to parse a list of file paths. It doesn't need to know anything about security settings. It simply accepts and works with an array of objects whatever they may be. No text mangling, no special coding. All just OO niceness.
>>Anyone who tells me different is a paid lackey of MSFT. Essentially, MSFT destroyed "personal computing" as much as possible, preventing people from fixing their own, making their own, deciding what goes on their own computers. I hate them for this.
Yeah, no. I built my own computer, I'm comfortable working around in it. I honestly don't think, based on your post, that you've taken the time to really learn how Windows works.
>>I do still remember Noel Edmonds taking the piss, starting a competing organisation he called DENSA for those who weren't smart enough,
Fun fact: DENSA and MENSA actually organized a wine and cheese party to meet each other once.
MENSA forgot the cheese. (True story!)
>>And then they made it stupidly verbose
You know there is such a thing as auto-complete? Plus the vastly greater consistency of naming of both commands and parameters provides far more gain than the brevity of awk, sed, top, whatever.
>>"but I don't really consider MCSE an asset when reviewing resumes, in fact I deduct points for it"
You can value the knowledge or not, consider the qualification an asset or not. But to actually count it against someone just shows you to be a snob. Someone put in time and effort and money to try and improve their career and you consider that a minus! Not smart.
I thought the extra thumb was marvellous. I loved that it appeared to be managed by sensors on the other fingers to provide a degree of independent movement in lieu of actual never connections. Genius, imo.
Shame it had to be accompanied by the inevitable pan-pipe and drum machine soundtrack, mind you.
>>"That's a logical fallacy. Open source is a defense against security flaws, but the protection it offers is not absolute (life's funny that way, not offering very many absolutes)."
I really don't think that in practice it is a defence. Proprietary / Open Source are as likely or unlikely to be bug free as each other because the deciding factors are the number of developers, age of code base, pace of development, code review practices... And none of these are determined or even significantly influenced by the Propriety / Open Source split.
What Open Source protects against is not bugs but deliberate subversion. It is a great deal harder to hide backdoors in Open Source than in Closed Source. Massively so. THAT is what Open Source provides (well, along with surety of future availability), not protection against bugs. The latter is just a sales pitch by the over-enthusiastic.
And then you could begin on the next great technological break though - stopping!
Docker is Open Source software contributed to by parties around the world. It is actually French in origin, as well, not American. It is meant to be free for all. And yet we have governments telling us who we can share it with.
I mean, the USA can't actually enforce this, but the principle pisses me off.
>>I made no morale judgement, just merely pointed out the practice is widespread in all fields. Of course it should not continue but if AO wishes to tackle this issue then it should be addressed in a broader context otherwise the scope is somewhat narrow and appears churlish.
Making overly-broad statements doesn't effect change. Specifically trying to chip away at parts of the problem can. And trying to stop one bad thing does not preclude trying to stop a different bad thing. It is normal and efficient for people to expose corruption in the area they work in. Would you equally chastise someone in the defence industry exposing wrongdoing by BAE for not publicising corruption in the pharmaceutical industry? The longer one thinks about what you wrote, the more it appears to be an attempt to deflect criticism or corrective action from Google.
And exposing such things is especially important when we're talking about the ability to manipulate public perception. A company lobbying a politician to vote a certain way is bad enough, and should be stopped. But at least you can say "that is a corrupt politician". A company manipulating academic studies and in control of public perception through search results and popularising or obfuscating particular articles or videos (e.g. YouTube), is in an even more powerful position than politicians.
Bringing this to people's attention is vital.
these companies can change people's perception of the world they live in.
>>Does Kaspersky have email protection? You know, viruses, trojans, malicious links and attempts to manipulate foreign elections?"
Manipulation of foreign elections. Hmmm... off the top of my head:
* The CIA have been actively fomenting disorder in Syria since 2012 (on record) and spend about a billion dollars a year funding and training rebel groups there.
* The USA was actively agitating in the Ukraine before the Orange Revolution there which overthrew the elected ruler of the country (whether or not there was electoral fraud as claimed, we'll probably never know but the overthrow was pushed for by the USA).
* When the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas because their only alternative was the insanely corrupt and Israeli backed Fatah, the USA froze their bank accounts around the world, sanctioned palestine and said the Palestinian people must vote again and elect someone the USA approved of.
* President Obama all but explicitly endorsed David Cameron and the Conservatives before the 2015 UK election with numerous statements and photo ops.
You could, in fact, go on for a pretty long time listing out the instances of the US interference with elections in foreign countries. But Oh No Kaspesky!
Well, given UK and USA intelligence are far more likely to be spying on me than the Russians, and that I'd be far more concerned about UK police battering my door in if I said or did something the UK government doesn't approve of than a police force on the other side of the world that doesn't give a shit about me, the logical answer would be Kaspersky.
Not that anyone has ever given any evidence of collusion as far as I can see and Kaspersky would have a lot to lose if they did.
However, there is also the simpler possibility that they know this wont stop "bad guys" but they can use it to dissuade law-abiding people from using encryption. That allows them to more easily sweep for those that do and hone in on them. It's not being able to hack encrypted emails they want so much as ensuring that most emails aren't encrypted.
>>The ones still in the job act as if their families would be murdered in their beds if they simply spoke honestly.
But he's a former GCHQ boss. Haven't you noticed that people who have retired / no longer depend on approval of others (public or government) suddenly start talking sense. Why even politicians suddenly become seemingly rational once they're no longer subject to party whips and looking good to the electorate. (Well, sometimes).
I discovered Lexx late at night on Channel 4 many, many years ago. It was the first episode and the moment a computer glitch switched the fates of a wanted terrorist with an assembly of school children who had arrived for an award ceremony, I knew I had to watch all of it. It's on Amazon Prime at the moment so I re-watched it the first couple of episodes. And guess what - the sight of a bunch of smug school children being sentenced to death by lizard still makes me laugh.
Honestly, neither Star Wars (no science), nor Star Treck (awful science) come close to the holy trinity of space nonsense that are Babylon 5, Blake 7 and Lexx.
That's funny. Avon saying: "Have you considered amputation?" has been my default reply to anyone complaining of a headache to me for years.
Doesn't win me many friends, though. :(
>>Yes. Obviously not for the average consumer, but for a well-resourced and motivated person/organisation. It requires only one such organisation to crack the DRM and make the content available to everyone else.
And yet none have. UHD BluRays have been around for a couple of years now. UHD BluRay has been holding up just fine.
>>"Trade is a matter of bargaining. If providers want to well to us then they have to deal with our terms. Success happens when a common set of terms can be agreed on by both sides."
But that's tangential to DRM. You are bothered by DRM because it allows wider range of terms to be negotiated over. Nobody has to buy DRM'd content and were the above truly what you believed then you would recognize that DRM doesn't impede the trading process. It logically enhances it because it opens up new options. For example, I rent movies on Amazon. That is a set of terms that would not be possible without DRM. I would be limited to posted discs or all-out purchase because there's no way a company can rely on an honour system for people to delete MP4 files after download. The DRM allows both sides to agree on a common set of terms that couldn't exist otherwise.
Let's be brutally frank here - your worry is not that people will not be able to agree on common terms and negotiate. Your worry is that people will do so and they will agree on terms that you personally do not like.
>>"Fine, but those who purchase something want something they can keep. Big Content tries to sell the same thing over and over again, rather like prostitution."
Really? When? Selling you DVD's for movies that you previously had on VHS? DVDs were way better than VHS and nobody forced you to buy. Selling Blu-ray versions of movies you had on DVD? Don't think the upgrade is worth it then don't buy it. For others, the noticeable jump in quality was. "Big Content" may try but unless they're actually forcing you to, then that's their right. Blu-ray to HD w/ HDR? Again, nobody forced you to buy if you don't think the quality jump is worth it to you.
Honestly, if a movie means that much to you that years after seeing it you still feel the need to see it still more and with higher quality, then pay. It's a different product. You were happy with the original quality. If you're no longer happy with that quality that doesn't mean you get the work and production costs that go into the latest release of it. This is a very frail argument to call buying a product a "ransom". Nobody can ransom something to you that you don't own and don't have to have and owning a crappy VHS copy of something doesn't mean you "own" the lastest remastered DVD.
You talk as if DRM is something for big players and not for small ones, patreons and direct-to-creator. But it's hugely useful to small players who ordinarily wouldn't be able to use DRM. This opens the door to small players being able to protect their work for the first time.
Which should then lead to an end to the ridiculous situation of paying a surcharge for blank media for the music industry. Sounds like a plus to me. Always been a dumb idea.
>>"To decrypt your files that our "CDM" encrypted you have to pay us our ransom"
You say ransom, I say purchase...
Those people who want to secure their content with DRM can use it. Those who don't aren't compelled to. The only negative consequence of this technology is the scenario of someone wanting access to content without, you know, paying for it. And that's just hypothetical so I'm sure has nothing to do with it.
I'm trying Yandex now. Thanks - this is a really good recommendation. It is blisteringly fast.
I don't mind auto correct when it is a spelling mistake. What drives me crazy with Windows Phone auto correct is when I type a word and it decides I must mean a different one because shock! horror! my vocabulary is wider than an illiterate fourteen year old. Or same principle it decides for me that I can't possibly use words like fuck, shit or cunt and changes them for me.
That, alongside lack of an app for Signal are the main things that killed Windows Phone for me.
>>then where is the hardware recall?
This is absolutely huge. A product recall would put a big dent in even Intel's enormous pockets.
One of the most interesting parts of that very good article was Semi-Accurate's belief that the bug was still there at the request of State Intelligence organizations. They cannot prove it but they support it with some good argument.
Which makes the opening paragraph of this article a little misjudged. There's a strong probability that the AMT flaw IS the result of state interference.
>>"Until they get rid of that particular asian social particularity
Particular Asian Particularity? I'm Western and if a couple of billion dollars and years of work of mine exploded, I'd be pretty "particular" about things, too.
I doubt a non-compete would do it. When the USA sets its sights on someone they say it's because of non-cooperation by the other party but that's just a fig-leaf. Saddam offered full access to weapons inspectors before Iraq war. Gaddhafi repeatedly offered ceasefires and dialogue from the very start of the Libya bombing. Kaspersky can offer, but unless he has a concrete guarantee that showing the source code will result in a calling off of the targetting, I wouldn't do it.
Remember, Kaspersky Labs are the ones that exposed the "Equation Group" (aka NSA) and also were our primary source for information about Stuxnet (Israel and USA in high probability). They have everything to lose here.
So many, many arguments I had with zealots about these things when MS started taking advantage of such technologies. Glad to see GNU/Linux finally getting up to scratch with this as well - it's been an annoying omission.
I don't think it's a US thing. More just an idiot thing.
I use Kaspersky. Runs very efficiently so far as I can tell.
Also, if there were government mandated backdoors in software I use (I do not believe Kaspersky contains any for the record), I would prefer them to be Russian than Western. After all, if I do something illegal or subversive, do you think Russian police are going to turn up on my doorstep? They wouldn't give a flying fuck. UK police or surveillance though - that's what I logically would have to worry about.
systemd'oh! DNS lib underscore bug bites everyone's favorite init tool, blanks Netflix
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017