* Posts by Charles 9

10592 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009

YouTube TV will be huge. Apple must respond

Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Nice advert you have there.

It still may be worth it to plenty. I know plenty of people who aren't team-loyal but simply watch what's available. I'm one of them, and what I want from sports is a close contest; it doesn't matter who's playing. As for the other channels, people may be able to live without the likes of Animal Planet, and while the unbundled Internet price goes up another $10, that's more than offset by the fact that $50/month is the bare minimum price for just local channels and a few essentials like CNN. The usual cable TV bill is closer to the $100 range as I've said, especially now that cable TV's all digital which means cable-ready TVs really aren't anymore, meaning box rentals of nearly $10/month per TV (and most households have at least two because the spouse doesn't want to be held hostage over channel choice). Then there's the additional $10/month charge if you want to record shows (more if you want more at a time), taxes, extra fees, etc. Trust me, I took a long and hard look at all those associated fees just last month because I was restructuring my subscription in a bid to save money. Jumping wasn't practical because the two other providers in my neighborhood have basically settled into a cartel with the first, and their overall rates aren't different enough. In my particular case I wouldn't want YouTube TV because I like to personally record my shows (at least by sticking I have access to an unencrypted HD stream I can run to a PVR box), but not everyone's in the same boat.

0
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Um...yes, and then some. Don't forget things like dinner and bed can be done WITH the TV on.

0
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Since when did Google ...

According to the article, this time they're paying for it and passing on the costs via the $35/month subscription. IOW, they're playing by the rules.

1
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Nice advert you have there.

"There is a limit to how many monthly subs people can bear. $35/month is a hefty one on top of Sky/VM and the latest Galaxy phone from EE."

Except if you "cut the cord" and only use the cable company for broadband, you can come out ahead since your average cable TV subscription starts around $50/month and can usually go as high as $100/month+ once you factor in boxes (which you can't buy outright or transfer between services, remember, especially since they're now all-digital so your TV can't do it) and channels which are intentionally split into different packages.

2
0

Sir Tim Berners-Lee refuses to be King Canute, approves DRM as Web standard

Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: "NOTHING beats FREE"

"Rubbish, Charles. CONVENIENCE beats free. Fandom and the desire to support your favourite content creators ALSO beats free. All an artist has to do is build a relationship with their fans, and provide their works in an easy to use, easy to transfer manner. Of course, that won't keep the coke train running for the increasingly-irrelevant middlemen. Tough shit for them."

Not necessarily. Haters gonna hate, and life on tour isn't what it used to be. Billy Joel's first #1 hit, "Piano Man," was based on the night he was just scraping doing playing in a bar. Many can't even get beyond that point and just fade into obscurity and you never hear about them. If you say tough shit for the middlemen (who you usually NEED to really get past the tour life due to their connections), you're basically saying tough shit for live music because that's life. Sometimes, the only way to make it is to make a deal with the devil; sad but true.

0
3
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: All the whining in the world...

"And what would ge the result? Well, nothing really. There will still be new content created and distributed. If you knew anything about history you'd know that there weren't even copyright laws back when the greatest creative geniuses the world has seen were creating wonderful art. Mozart, Shakespeare, Haydn, and Beethoven, for example: they all created great works anyway. No DRM, not even copyright."

Yes, but then the common people didn't have access to them. They were all commissioned...by the RICH. Want to go back to those days when art was only done by commission by the rich who could afford the artists' price demands?

1
1
Charles 9
Silver badge

"Because phones aren't general purpose computing devices despite all claims to the contrary? Secondly they're not as secure as you might think - keys *can* be retrieved from them if they were worth the effort."

But risky. Many of those keys are housed in suicide circuits (think FIPS-compliant modules) which wipe if you try to read them directly. And the effort clearly isn't worth the reward at this point since even new smartphones with the feature built-in (not to mention things like ARM's TrustZones) would make very attractive targets yet they haven't been broken. This may have to do with the most fundamental signature checks being against ROM, making them impossible to defeat without performing a preimage attack (and if you can pull off a preimage attack, there are government agencies that would like to talk to you).

0
2
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: The stupid thing is....

"And go after the major profitable pirating organisations and leave the students alone."

Most of the pirating organizations live in countries hostile to the West, making apprehending them nigh-impossible (because those states are tacitly encouraging them).

"The reality of the medium is that its copyable. Learn to live with it. Copyright is, today, completely unenforceable. That is the lesson the music business had to learn with the demise of the 'studio album' bands."

4K BluRays can't be copied. They're encrypted end-to-end, including the player and the display. Unless they can break the end-to-end encryption used on many smartphones, DHCP 2.0 should remain strong for a while (yes, even the master key has a safeguard since many movie discs are serialized and require Internet registration). The 4K rips you see now come from WebRips, not BDRips.

0
2
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: The stupid thing is....

They don't care about screeners there since most of the quality will be lost. They care about screeners in cinemas since it breaks their timetables.

0
3
Charles 9
Silver badge

"This isn't actually strictly true, and effective DRM isn't actually possible. It's just shit to put in browsers for the sake of putting it in. If it can be built it can be broken."

Oh? How come they can't do that with smartphones, then? There are still plenty of phones for which custom OS's are impossible because they use CPUs with mandated black-boxed encryption (the key is stored in the CPU and not accessible directly) that enforces signature checking and the like?

0
7
Charles 9
Silver badge

"Seriously, screw the media cartels."

You REALLY want to screw the media cartels? There's only one way they'll listen. Get lots of people to stop going to cinemas.

0
2
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: insanity

"What big content want is end-to-end control of the entire distribution channel. This includes them having the ability to run arbitrary code on your machines. No doubt they will also continue lobbying until they get the next piece of the puzzle: namely, being able to bring you to court if you try to circumvent these "protections" on devices that you and you alone own."

WRONG. They'll fix that by making it so you only LEASE them and make it a Hobson's Choice so you have no other option. If you REALLY want to make the movie companies pay attention, convince people to boycott cinemas and stop watching ANY movies in ANY form. Only when you can hit them in their most lucrative money stream will they notice you.

1
2
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Better than plugins

"That's an important distinction, and it costs us absolutely nothing, other than having to show a bit of backbone."

Except it's all hollow bravado. The content providers are the types who hear, "Over my dead body," and respond, "If you insist..."

IOW, sometimes you have to pick your fights. And since people still flock to cinemas, we wouldn't win that fight. The average joe wouldn't be able to tell the difference and frankly wouldn't give a rodent's donkey about whether or not it's an open standard or not. Gimme my movie is all they want, which is why Netflix is making a killing, too, IN SPITE of proprietary standards.

1
2
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: "NOTHING beats FREE"

Tell that to World of Goo. He released a game cheap as chips and people STILL pirated it, EXTENSIVELY. And he had proof of it, too.

2
2
Charles 9
Silver badge

Yes, they do. They ONLY cede those rights when the copyright expires. That's why their name is attached. And we're talking about how new releases which are MEANT to be within copyright's purview.

2
5
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: And will this DRM realise its been run in a VM and is a chocolate teapot?

Except this time BluRay players can ONLY be set-top boxes AND they REQUIRE the use of encrypted host processors. Based on what I've seen in the smartphone front, encrypted OS images HAVE NOT been cracked (the keys are stored on the processors themselves and contain suicide circuits and the like, think FIPS-compliant crypto modules), and they use government-standard encryption algorithms which means if they can find a way to crack them, they'd have a lot bigger fish to fry.

IOW, this time they've done their homework. The video streams are never presented on the wires in a decrypted format until they reach the actual screens (HDCP 2.0 mandates this IINM), by which time the data is too large (raw pixels) to capture in a lossless way.

0
3
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: And will this DRM realise its been run in a VM and is a chocolate teapot?

They don't work with 4K discs because they use HDCP 2.0, which uses different keys and IINM forbids the use of splitters.

0
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

"And to do anything else you want to to it or with it unless that act is specifically illegal."

That includes PHOTOCOPYING it.

4
7
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: And will this DRM realise its been run in a VM and is a chocolate teapot?

But I bet you they're NOT coming from BluRay rips, though. And I think many of them aren't real 4Ks but upscaled 1080s passing off as 4Ks. Plus some of those copies are supposed to be watermarked.

3
8
Charles 9
Silver badge

No, THEY get the final say because they're the providers. The seller ALWAYS gets the final call. They don't HAVE to sell or provide, AND they can give ultimatums: take it or leave it. If you leave it, it's YOUR loss, not theirs (they can always find another customer).

2
27
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: All the whining in the world...

But that's searching for unicorns because NOTHING beats FREE.

1
19
Charles 9
Silver badge

"Get the MPAA and RIAA DRM out of our tv equipment (HDMI/HDCP) and stop it getting baked in to the internals of our browsers.

The media companies should be able to utilise the peoples internet but not shape it to become their own content delivery content network where they have control over who can play what and where along with what websites can be seen at their behest."

Trouble is, it's ultimately THEIR content. Copyright means they get the final say on where their content gets shown and under what conditions. If you can't abide by those conditions, just don't watch. But since they still make a killing, that would put you in the minority.

5
16
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: And will this DRM realise its been run in a VM and is a chocolate teapot?

Yes, actually. Malware can tell using timing attacks and so on. DRM systems can do the same, and there's really no way to prevent them, say, doing time trials and using external time servers (which you can't block) to figure out if they're in a VM or not.

Why do you think 4K BluRay players are so strict? They know all the tricks and are working extremely hard to keep all those doors closed. PCs aren't allowed to touch the stuff, only set top boxes, and those are encrypted up the wazoo, including using new DHCP keys (some even require online registration).

6
1
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

You NEVER own that content. It's ALWAYS been LICENSED to you. That's what copyright is all about.

2
28
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Any Restriction Placed on the Internet

It's also, as Sir Berners-Lee notes, inevitable due to simple realities. The content providers can withhold and stick to the classic models; people still pay bookoo bucks to sit down at cinemas, and so on. People come to them, not the other way around. So unless you want to abandon the Internet, you better hunker down. If it isn't EME, it'll be something else completely proprietary but, because it's the only show in town, accepted.

PS. Thumbing down that simple fact isn't going to make it any less true. Their content, their rules. Take it or leave it.

15
7

Autonomous cars are about to do to transport what the internet did to information

Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Wrong Problem

No, because you still need the same amount of road infrastructure as you would now, simply because the roads you use now are the SAME roads bulk transportation needs to get everything everyWHERE. That's the weak link with trains: they can't go the last mile. That includes to your driveway or mailbox.

0
1
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Wrong Problem

How can you use PRT for cargo, though, especially HEAVY cargo that's too fine-grained for a train?

0
1

Li-ion king Goodenough creates battery he says really is... good enough

Charles 9
Silver badge

The problem with the tech is that it's not very energy-dense. Thus why you have to use honking big containers. It's rather cumbersome for anything below distribution-level storage. It's also rather temperature-sensitive and not very useful in potentially-cold climates (below 10°C) because you suffer crystallization that cold.

0
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Excuse me, but can't they get lithium from seawater, too?

0
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Mr. Wizard sped up the process by pouring cold water on the container.

0
0

Ex penetrated us almost 700 times through secret backdoor, biz alleges

Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Temptation is a terrible thing...

I'd counter, "Then explain berserkers, who wield their swords IN a mad rage."

0
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: How about his replacement?

But what if it WAS someone they knew? What if there really WAS someone in the firm named Jeff Manning complete with records and so on?

Besides, there's also the possibility he knew the audit was coming and found a way to conceal the name FROM the audit using root tricks and so on.

1
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: @AC: top man

"it was a chance for the bank to audit what that officer had been doing."

But AGAIN, who audits the AUDITOR? Especially since the firm was of a type where they lacked a second IT person with the same level of expertise? Besides, someone THAT high up would probably know enough to be able to hide their stuff FROM auditors.

0
3

COP BLOCKED: Uber app thwarted arrests of its drivers by fooling police with 'ghost cars'

Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: I'm sure this will look good in front of the judge

"My smartphone sits mostly discharged by the computer (since the moment you think of calling someone the battery drains 90%) and I generally use a dumbphone that can give me a few days standby and several hours talk. I'd forgotten about the access some apps want to ask for, and also didn't realise you need a CC for Uber (CC use is still relatively rare in NZ)."

Uber has pay-with-cash prepaid cards, though, at least in the US (saw one loaded just yesterday). Does Uber require you to register in order to use those?

1
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: tbh, Uber has a point

By my understanding, at least under US law, an act is by default legal until it is declared illegal by law, and ONLY for future commissions (retrospective laws are prohibited). Perhaps you can elaborate on what kinds of acts can be neither legal nor illegal.

1
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: I'm more interested to know where they're getting their data from

According to other sources, Uber can get pretty aggressive. They look up publicly-known details about officers and so on, use GPS to check for requests from known government facilities, and so on. According to the BBC version of the article, Uber employees even go to cell phone companies in order to catch plods trying to buy burner phones in an attempt to cover their tracks.

2
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: tbh, Uber has a point

Put it this way. If bait cars are legal, so is this. Look up "honey trap".

2
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Cleared?

"Assuming that being a uber driver is a crime in city A, unless Uber are arguing there are no drivers, until the police fire up the app, then the "crime" is happening anyway, and the police are just trying to catch one in the act - much like loitering to see who tries to sell you drugs."

Or the ol' Bait Car. It's a form of honey trap operation, which if kept within the rules of engagement is admissible in court.

4
0

Prisoners' 'innovative' anti-IMSI catcher defence was ... er, tinfoil

Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Wouldn't it be cheaper...

But since you can't have that kind of guarantee (Wanna bet? I just corrupt the guarantor), SOMEONE'S gonna gamble...and get away with it. And with stakes that high, the reward can trump the risk.

0
0

CloudPets' woes worsen: Webpages can turn kids' stuffed toys into creepy audio bugs

Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Grab the burning torches and pitchforks

Unless, of course, your computer is owned and can do it FOR YOU.

0
0

Raspberry Pi gives us all new 'Pi Zero W' for its fifth birthday

Charles 9
Silver badge

That's PURSE-flattening because wallets tend to hold the bills/notes.

0
0

Security slip-ups in 1Password and other password managers 'extremely worrying'

Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: All eggs in a basket?

Besides, what if you have a bad memory? Having all your eggs in one basket doesn't sound so bad if one basket is all you can spare.

0
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Happy 1Password User

I got news for you. It's only the law that allows wills to be enforced, and wills canmot condone illegal acts, so law trumps will. Indeed, if there is a dispute over a will, then probate courts step in to resolve them.

0
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: All flaws are not equal

Trouble is, they can fuck back, tell their friends, and make sure you can never work productively again.

0
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: "our advice to the customers is to always update their apps"

Well, for many, cheapie means a feature phone or an Android phone so crippled you can't really run anything on it (IOW, $50 tops).

0
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Command-line password manager?

"Remeber you cant outrun the (fancy)bear, you just need to outrun the other internet users."

Except the bear will still be hungry and will keep going. Ultimately, he'll reach you. Meanwhile, there's the discerning tiger who might recognize you as a tastier meal and single you out.

0
0

Net neutrality? Bye bye, says American Pai

Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: "they deployed each a different mobile standard in an attempt to gain a monopoly. "

"I personally liked the bit where the person answering the mobile call (on some systems) paid part of the cost."

Well, it makes perfect sense since the answering mobile uses the airwaves, too. Otherwise, who pays for the airtime when a landline (who even back then was normally flat-rate) calls a mobile?

0
0

Java? Nah, I do JavaScript, man. Wise up, hipster, to the money

Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: Defensive

"COMMODORE *INVENTED* ALL-CAPS CODING.

TRY DOING THAT WITH ANYTHING ELSE."

Seriously? Thought that was Apple and Integer BASIC, given it predates the Commodore and, like the Commodore, defaulted to uppercase.

0
0
Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: @Wolfetone .... Meh!

PS. There IS a Meh icon. It's the straight face.

3
0

One IP address, multiple SSL sites? Beating the great IPv4 squeeze

Charles 9
Silver badge

Re: End to end is a myth

"What a load of bollocks, IPv6 doesn't fix this, it just resets the mess for it to slowly become a mess again."

If you can choke 64 bits of addressing, I'd love to see how you produce the matter needed to create that many nodes.

"IPv4 routing tables are not choking, its a matter of memory and cpu. "

And guess what? Backbone routers have FIXED memory, not to mention not a lot of time to do their work so they do most of their routing in hardware, limiting the amount of RAM they can use. Thus why IPv4 routing tables are FIXED at 512,000 entries. Plus because they're high-performance, they're expensive.

"I'm not hearing people moaning about CGNAT. How the hell can a whole continent (clients and servers) be behind CGNAT? Just how does that work. If commerce and clients are behind CGNAT and it still works and no one complains because they are all behind it, then what's the problem? Sounds like the only one with a problem is you."

Because like I said most of them do business locally (which to them is BEHIND the NAT).

"the only NAT of significance that my home traffic passes through is the one i have control of, yes i hide my proxy traffic behind my FW IP, I can also do manual NAT too especially useful for the non www systems at home i remotely connect to. The NAT on my works infrastructure hasn't stopped me connecting to my home either, their proxy polices have stopped access to my home web server (curse that bluecoat not letting me connect to IP's or free hosting URL's), there are however workarounds."

Wait until you're behind a CARRIER-grade NAT (CGNAT). Then you WON'T be in control, and odds are asking for a port or even an exposed IP address will be harder than a moonshot. Then you'll be at the mercy of other providers who can abuse their position to become Big Brothers.

"My home systems are currently only controlled by me and only me. yes i have remote access, IOT etc all works fine. If i had a need i'd purchase static IP's from my ISP, the 1 dynamic address i currently have is ok."

And if NONE of the ISPs in your area offer it? It's not like you can just move (which in the US may not be an option, either, since you'll just move from one monopoly to another).

"The problem is the insistence & belief that NAT is evil, its not, its an enabler & should not be disregarded. IETF has even recognised and conceded that IPv6 NAT is necessary and come up with a partial reinstatement with NAT66. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296"

Which is one-to-one. They don't have any problem with one-to-one NAT. It's one-to-many they don't like because it removes the capability. Give us the option. CGNAT prevents the option from ever existing.

0
1

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017