I know it's currently fashionable to flame first and speak later (if at all) but you don't have to be so rude. if you have something to say then join in the discussion but simply writing off the idea in that tone isn't helping anyone and makes you look like an arrogant prick.
usb was just an idea, firewire would still work too, and is probably better suited (if alittle more expensive) due to different cpu requirements. my point was to use a standard that allows power transfer along the same cable as data. I don't think that either usb2 or firewire gives enough power for 3.5" drives which is a shame (unless of course one makes sure it does, but I don't know if this would remain within standard)
as for usb naming, you're just trying to look high and mighty. I know what usb2 means to me, and I know what usb1.1 means, however with the recent spat about what usb2 is supposed to mean I thought I'd make it clear.
now scsi3 drives in removeable caddies "aren't cheap" and scsi cards are also "not cheap". usb/firewire controllers however are cheap, have alot of bandwidth and have predefined standards for mass storage devices on them (amongst other things). yes, 2.5" ide disks are more expensive that 3.5" die disks, but they are still alot cheaper than 3.5" scsi drives.
ide to usb or firewire adaptors are also pretty cheap. I'm not saying that my idea doesn't have it's flaws or that it's designed for the enterprise, it's clearly neither. however I do think it's an interesting idea that a few people might like and I don't think it's deserving of the ridicule that you're heaping on it but thats just what I think.
the other thing about it is that someone could implement this at home today with bits he could buy at a local computer shop. it might not be all that neat but it would work.
Firewire and SATA are much better suited for use with mass-storage devices.
alright then, firewire instead as thats another bus that transfers power along the same cable as data, which makes things very easy. it's the concept I'm putting out there, not necessarily the specific implementation.
my only issue with sata is that while it has tiny cables for data it still has a huge great big power cable. usb gives enough power over the cable for a 2.5" hd (is it enough for a 3.5" drive? not sure, it would be nice) so it's a single plug thats designed for easy addition and removal.
you could have little caddies with usb ports on and a 2x5.25" bay in a computer that could take 4 or 5 drives. I wouldn't really advocate a hardware raid adaptor as that would be expensive. software raid would do.
afaik ide2usb convertors really aren't very expensive. as for cpu power useage, well thats something I hadn't considered perhaps firewire instead then?
I'm glad you replied politely, it was only a brainstorming style idea. I think it would be nice to have harddrives that are easy to add and remove from a machine, even if it's only 1. external firewire/usb drives are alright but they kinda look messy on the top of a machine, it would be nice to have a handy bay in the computer where you can literally just slot a new drive in.
what I'm thinking might be interesting for doing servers on the cheap would be to do raid arrays with usb based drives. 2.5" drives are small and low powered enough to be powered completely via the usb bus, usb2 (well, the version of usb that does 480mbps) has enough bandwidth, if you dedicated one usb controller per drive and had your 2.5" drives each mounted in a small metal container with a ide2usb adaptor in it then you would have a nice, cheap raid array with easily removeable drives. usb controllers cost buttons and you could either do software raid or even a hardware controller which could be built for the purpose.
it could be alot cheaper than removeable scsi drives, the raiding software could mark the drives so that they can be put in in any order.
well said that man, I agree with you on quite a few points there. interestingly, as you may or may not know, in the UK you need a TV licence to (own and watch broadcast TV). note the brackets. you don't need a licence to simply own a tv if you're not going to watch broadcast tv on it (ie if you just have it to watch dvd's on or use with your playstation).
the wierd thing is that there must be a licence for the tv, if you watcvh tv on it. if the owner of the tv doesn't have a licence and you're caught watching it, then you are at fault. if you look in the window of a tv shop and watch the tv there, and they don't have a licence, then you could be liable if you're caught watching the footie. silly isn't it.
we do have digital radio over here which is free to listen to (once you've got over the extortionate price for the digital tuner) and afaik, it doesn't have any facility to charge for the content.
yes, I am worried about things like the broadcast flag ideas and the like. *sigh* alas I don't think anything will really happen until the population at large get annoyed about it, and they are, at the moment, accepting their fate like the good little trained sheep we all are.
I think in many ways we're on the same side of the fence here. I don't like the idea of banning something because one section of the world has issues with it. I'm personally happy that smartcard programmers have lots of legitimate uses and were I the judge, I'd throw the cases out of court.
I also beleive that most people are generally honest. I used napster (and later, audiogalaxy) at university, along with thousands of others, and I probabaly bought more cd's because of it. it introduced me to lots of new music and I, like most people would rather own the media for real. I could download movies, instead I buy dvd's. I'm enough of a geek to be able to pirate dvd's if I wanted to, but I'd rather buy them and own the original (exception, I want to buy a pirate copy of the original starwars trilogy, ripped from the laserdisc originals, lucas won't release them in that form again and I don't have an LD copy. shame I don't know where to find them though).
yes, my conversations on the phone would be quite dull to most people, as indeed yours are. and while the our chats on the phone are going to be dull to most other people, they won't be dull to everyone. that kind of thing would be an interesting boon to some of your nosy friends and relatives and as you say, it's easy enough to pick up analogue cordless calls on any radio scanner, but you shouldn't be able to. most cordless phones sold here are dect ones with built in encryption (although I've no idea how good it is, probably trivial).
I suppose in ths sense my mind works like the way that internet standards are supposed to work, be lax in what you accept and rigorous in what you put out. I want a world in which we don't need to encrypt things and hide, a world in which dvd's aren't copy protected and macrovision isn't used etc. and my world might possible have laws against exerting that kind of control over consumers (I have some slightly radical ideas about IP mind you:). I don't like the trend of contorlling content long after it's left the company. but for all that, I would want everyone to ensure their own personal privacy. I would be happy for mobile phones to use ipsec to speak to the base station etc.
I don't mind an online seller letting a customer download an encrypted mp3 and selling the password (ie selling the music). but once the consumer has that mp3, it's his to do with and no drm shall apply. I still think that the customer is held by copyright law, ie he shouldn;t just copy it willy nilly, but no-one should be able to stop him burning it to a cd to play in his car
I do agree that casual pirates are, for the most part, neither here nor there. the professionals are where the problem is, they are the ones who dupe office half a million times and sell it. that I accept needs stamping out, but who really benefits by trying to jail someone for giving his mum a copy of office?
all these copy protection and access control mechanisms have little effect on the professionals, but get in the way of normal consumers, andf thats not right.
one of my goals in life is to set up a new country and try some of these idea's out. write a new system of justice, and politics etc. where personal freedom's are more important that government snooping and corporate profit.
alas that kind of thing needs money and lots of it, and it's something I've just not got. I need an extremely rich philanthropist to explain my ideas to and fund my venture. I really think a country like this would work. I have several ideas for it but I suspect they will rot away in my brain for evermore.
dave
PS. my other main goal in life is to own a zeppelin;)
I see your point, and I'm very glad that you're argueing you side with reason, and not just flaming me:)
yes, I know we're not living in utopia and indeed I have both locks and alarms on my car and home, more's the pity.
I don't know, I think that there is much to be said for companies making sure they do things properly rather than do it half heartedly and then use the law to go the rest of the way. if they did it properly to begin with then there would be very few lawsuits as very few people would be capable of committing the crime in the first place.
directv's business plan involves spraying EM radiation across everyone in america, you get that radiation whether you are a customer or not. cable companies only send their signals to people who are paid up customers to some level. a cable co can, theoretically, only send the tv stations to each customer that the person is listed at head office as having paid for (I admit, I really don't know all the tech involved) but a satellite company can't do that so easily. thats a given fact thats known beforehand and must be taken into consideration. they obviously have done so when the decided to encrypt the signal, but if they're going to do so then they should do it properly instead of doing it badly and then bleating about it afterwards. it's like adobe complainging that someone broke their rot13 encryption and having someone arrested for it, ffs, they put it out there in the first place in that bad state and then they expect someone else to take responsibility for it.
yes, it costs money to develop all this, but that should be known beforehand and written into their plan. it's like companies who produce drugs, it would be alot cheaper for all concerned if they didn't have to go through all that silly fda testing before they hit the market, yet they do and thats known about beforehand. not everything should be produced at lowest cost, sometimes you have to pay extra to get a better product.
with a satellite company there will likely be people getting the signal who don't even live in the states (I guess that the signal overlaps into canada and mexico?). it seems to me that if you're publically broadcasting data at such a wide scale, you've got to expect that people will have a play with it.
going out of your way to evesdrop on someone is one thing but if you're sitting in your home, not constrained by any licences you've signed (as you might not be a customer of directv) etc, then why is decrypting some signals that come *to you* illegal?
who knows how much IP of aliens we've ignored by recording all that stuff at arecibo for example:)
talking about dvd's. the licencing costs for them are hideous, I think they are in the league of 70% of the retail cost goes to the dvd consortium in licencing money, however, I think most of the cost of that has nothing to do with pirates, and everything to do with wanting to control the market and squeeze some more cash out of the consumers. look at the infamous divx? (the dvd-like "expiring movie" concept, not the video file). I don't think that had any copy protection in it, it was purely based around selling someone a film and then restricting how they watch it (in this case, number of times).
why should I not be able to buy dvd's in america and watch them here. yes, I know I'm preaching to the converted here, and I know that I can (and have) had my player hacked to be multiregion, but why should I have to do these things? thats not about piracy, it's about control and I, like many here, don't like it.
I do find it very difficult to accept the idea of banning technology though, it's a short term measure at best, you can't stop the progress of humanity. banning the tech won't get rid of it, just make it harder to find. necessity is the mother of invention and if you force people to kake their technology hard to find, then they will find new and interesting ways of making it hard to find. if you force the companies to find new
Signals blasted into your own house are one thing, but it's something else when you're going around with the intent of eavesdropping. I mean, if it was the government tapping your phone line or intercepting your wireless you'd be pissed as hell wouldn't you?
well, yes and no. I mean I'd still think it's wrong for someone to break into ibm to be within their WAP's, but of course thats trespassing anyway.
thing is that intent is difficult to prove. I suppose if you were caught in your car outside ibm redhandedly sniffing their code, then thats one thing, perhaps that would be an offence in my world. but doing the same thing while sat in your own home is another. I mean even the best crypto needs review and work done on it.
as for the gov, well, of course I would never want them listening in on me, but if they had a warrant (got via due process of course) then I think it's fair.
I have to admit, I don't have all the answer, I don't know all the details about how I want my country to turn out, but I have ideas, and I know the general direction I want it to run in.
You don't have the right to do whatever you want with the waves that cross your property. A good example is mobile phone waves. It's illegal and wrong to snoop onto peoples' conversations based on the fact that their signals are crossing over your property
you're missing my logic. yes, I do think it's an invasion of privacy to listen to someone elses phone calls, but I also think the onus is on the phone companies to make the encryption of cellphone calls strong enough that people can't listen in.
and no, I don't buy the story that the authorities need the crypto to be weak so that they can listen to crims plan their next crime, cell phone conversations are only encrypted when over the air, they travel along the wires (ie from cellbase to the cell companies switches) in plaintext form and if the authorities have a warrant then they can listen there.
I'm a proponent of crypto, everyone should have access to it and it shouldn't be artifically weakened, if the authorities want to break it, then they should break it or find the guy who crypted it and ask for the keys. artificially weakening crypto will only hurt in the long run I think.
so frankly I think it should not be illegal for someone to try and crack the crypto on the mobile phone waves going over their property, but I also think that the phone co should have an obligation to make sure that the crypto for their phones is kept uptodate and that no-one cal break into it.
I don't know, when I drive by the IBM compound I am blasted with radiation. I guess if they wanted their information private they wouldn't use wireless phones and 802.11g connections.
I know you're being sarcastic, but why not consider it. they are broadcasting information, why shouldn't someone else listen. they don't have to break in or taps lines or lay bugs, all they are doing is sitting nearby. if two people are talking at normal volume in the library, are other ppl commiting crimes listening to them?
if ibm want to keep their info private then they should make sure it's encrypted to that others can't make any sense of the transmissions. thats alot more effective than trying to sue the listeners.
not that this idea is perfect, as it makes parabolic and laser mikes alot more acceptable, which I don't like. but I still think that if something is broadcast towards you, then you should not be made a criminal just by listening to it.
besides, ITV digital going down got me a cheap itv digital box to watch freeview on, which is great for me. I got the pioneer one which my tivo is happily controlling. of course there still isn't much on, the extra 11 channels of whatever don't exactly blow my mind but hey, at least the picture quality is better than analogue.
shame that there isn't anything else I could pick up on it (or am I wrong?)
In this case I can't buy the "substantial non-infringing use"
and there is a huge market for pirate video's too (as hilary rosen so vociferously predicted), should they have been made illegal too?
yes, there are alot of people who do use the cards to pirate signal, but there are also quite a few people who have legitimate uses for them and for drecttv to blanket sue *anyone* who has one is just plain wrong imho.
besides, there is a certain logic to say that the consumers are being sprayed with encrypted signal, why should someone else have a say in what they can do with the EM waves in their own property? if they can break the crypto, then perhaps directv should try making the technology better. after all, the consumers are passively receiving the signal, it's not like they are tapping into a private line.
I'm an imap guy personally, I run my own mailserver, with spamassassin marking anything at 6 or over as spam and bouncing anything at 30 or over (I've not yet had a false positive that hgih so I figure it's probabaly safeish)
anyways, for me imap is a superset of pop3 and allows me to run webmail so I can read my mail when not at home too. TLS support too of course. I'm happy to leave my mail on the server, but then, it's my server so I don't have any limits on storage etc.
actually, doesn't rms want gnu/linux due to all the gnu tools in the normal linux base systems? well, if one is referring to just the kernel then surely linux on it's own is perfectly acceptable?
The proper complaint is that we didn't keep up with them.:-p
ahh, you're from that part of american we colonised in an early expedition in the 1400's aren't you? it was a huge secret at the time, we wanted to get a head start on those spaniards. we sent the main contingent a few centuries later which is the one all the history books talk about;)
dave
Re:U.S. spelling has the original forms
on
Flavor vs. Flavour
·
· Score: 1
try to find a Brit who still says "lorry" instead of "truck" and doesn't remember WW II first hand
actually, I use both, but then I also use the word billion when I mean 1,000,000,000,000, the american billion being a milliard of course.
Seriously though, when you make a left-hand turn (across traffic here in the states) your tires spinning cause a force downwards, which causes your tires to grip the ground better. When turning right, they lift up, so people crossing traffic here have better grip on the ground than the people who drive on the non-right side of the road.
I really wanna hear the scientific background for this one:)
caveat emptor is one thing, but this is really taking the piss. a netapp is not bespoke software, even though it might be expensive. I don't mind a company getting paid a fair price for their product but this kind of lark puts me off them in the first place.
it's this kind of shit that got the doctorine of first sale pass for books
the guy wasn't asking for free maintenance though, he was trying to buy maintenance, and thats only half the point. the company was telling them that they couldn't even use their netapp, even though they had paid for it.
look, so what if it was bought off ebay, why does that matter? the item was bought originally and both the hardware and software was paid for upfront and I don;t hink that netapp have any moral reason to ask for any money. they just want money for old rope. it's been sold, let it go for fucks sake.
I'm unhappy enough with IP law and licencing etc as it is but when companies push it like that then that really does annoy me. mind you, perhaps it's the kind of thing the world needs to push forward a revolt over this kind of crap. one day the general populace will begin to understand all this and get annoyed and they're not going to let it go on.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's currently fashionable to flame first and speak later (if at all) but you don't have to be so rude. if you have something to say then join in the discussion but simply writing off the idea in that tone isn't helping anyone and makes you look like an arrogant prick.
usb was just an idea, firewire would still work too, and is probably better suited (if alittle more expensive) due to different cpu requirements. my point was to use a standard that allows power transfer along the same cable as data. I don't think that either usb2 or firewire gives enough power for 3.5" drives which is a shame (unless of course one makes sure it does, but I don't know if this would remain within standard)
as for usb naming, you're just trying to look high and mighty. I know what usb2 means to me, and I know what usb1.1 means, however with the recent spat about what usb2 is supposed to mean I thought I'd make it clear.
now scsi3 drives in removeable caddies "aren't cheap" and scsi cards are also "not cheap". usb/firewire controllers however are cheap, have alot of bandwidth and have predefined standards for mass storage devices on them (amongst other things). yes, 2.5" ide disks are more expensive that 3.5" die disks, but they are still alot cheaper than 3.5" scsi drives.
ide to usb or firewire adaptors are also pretty cheap. I'm not saying that my idea doesn't have it's flaws or that it's designed for the enterprise, it's clearly neither. however I do think it's an interesting idea that a few people might like and I don't think it's deserving of the ridicule that you're heaping on it but thats just what I think.
the other thing about it is that someone could implement this at home today with bits he could buy at a local computer shop. it might not be all that neat but it would work.
dave
Firewire and SATA are much better suited for use with mass-storage devices.
alright then, firewire instead as thats another bus that transfers power along the same cable as data, which makes things very easy. it's the concept I'm putting out there, not necessarily the specific implementation.
dave
my only issue with sata is that while it has tiny cables for data it still has a huge great big power cable. usb gives enough power over the cable for a 2.5" hd (is it enough for a 3.5" drive? not sure, it would be nice) so it's a single plug thats designed for easy addition and removal.
you could have little caddies with usb ports on and a 2x5.25" bay in a computer that could take 4 or 5 drives. I wouldn't really advocate a hardware raid adaptor as that would be expensive. software raid would do.
afaik ide2usb convertors really aren't very expensive. as for cpu power useage, well thats something I hadn't considered perhaps firewire instead then?
I'm glad you replied politely, it was only a brainstorming style idea. I think it would be nice to have harddrives that are easy to add and remove from a machine, even if it's only 1. external firewire/usb drives are alright but they kinda look messy on the top of a machine, it would be nice to have a handy bay in the computer where you can literally just slot a new drive in.
it's just a thought
dave
what I'm thinking might be interesting for doing servers on the cheap would be to do raid arrays with usb based drives. 2.5" drives are small and low powered enough to be powered completely via the usb bus, usb2 (well, the version of usb that does 480mbps) has enough bandwidth, if you dedicated one usb controller per drive and had your 2.5" drives each mounted in a small metal container with a ide2usb adaptor in it then you would have a nice, cheap raid array with easily removeable drives. usb controllers cost buttons and you could either do software raid or even a hardware controller which could be built for the purpose.
it could be alot cheaper than removeable scsi drives, the raiding software could mark the drives so that they can be put in in any order.
what do you folks think?
dave
it seems it would be the only way to get rid of smtp/pop3 once and for all.
whats wrong with pop3 (and by extention, imap4)?
and smtp works fine, although I can accept that alot of people think that should be replaced due to spam issues.
dave
well said that man, I agree with you on quite a few points there. interestingly, as you may or may not know, in the UK you need a TV licence to (own and watch broadcast TV). note the brackets. you don't need a licence to simply own a tv if you're not going to watch broadcast tv on it (ie if you just have it to watch dvd's on or use with your playstation).
the wierd thing is that there must be a licence for the tv, if you watcvh tv on it. if the owner of the tv doesn't have a licence and you're caught watching it, then you are at fault. if you look in the window of a tv shop and watch the tv there, and they don't have a licence, then you could be liable if you're caught watching the footie. silly isn't it.
we do have digital radio over here which is free to listen to (once you've got over the extortionate price for the digital tuner) and afaik, it doesn't have any facility to charge for the content.
yes, I am worried about things like the broadcast flag ideas and the like. *sigh* alas I don't think anything will really happen until the population at large get annoyed about it, and they are, at the moment, accepting their fate like the good little trained sheep we all are.
dave
I think in many ways we're on the same side of the fence here. I don't like the idea of banning something because one section of the world has issues with it. I'm personally happy that smartcard programmers have lots of legitimate uses and were I the judge, I'd throw the cases out of court.
:). I don't like the trend of contorlling content long after it's left the company. but for all that, I would want everyone to ensure their own personal privacy. I would be happy for mobile phones to use ipsec to speak to the base station etc.
;)
I also beleive that most people are generally honest. I used napster (and later, audiogalaxy) at university, along with thousands of others, and I probabaly bought more cd's because of it. it introduced me to lots of new music and I, like most people would rather own the media for real. I could download movies, instead I buy dvd's. I'm enough of a geek to be able to pirate dvd's if I wanted to, but I'd rather buy them and own the original (exception, I want to buy a pirate copy of the original starwars trilogy, ripped from the laserdisc originals, lucas won't release them in that form again and I don't have an LD copy. shame I don't know where to find them though).
yes, my conversations on the phone would be quite dull to most people, as indeed yours are. and while the our chats on the phone are going to be dull to most other people, they won't be dull to everyone. that kind of thing would be an interesting boon to some of your nosy friends and relatives and as you say, it's easy enough to pick up analogue cordless calls on any radio scanner, but you shouldn't be able to. most cordless phones sold here are dect ones with built in encryption (although I've no idea how good it is, probably trivial).
I suppose in ths sense my mind works like the way that internet standards are supposed to work, be lax in what you accept and rigorous in what you put out. I want a world in which we don't need to encrypt things and hide, a world in which dvd's aren't copy protected and macrovision isn't used etc. and my world might possible have laws against exerting that kind of control over consumers (I have some slightly radical ideas about IP mind you
I don't mind an online seller letting a customer download an encrypted mp3 and selling the password (ie selling the music). but once the consumer has that mp3, it's his to do with and no drm shall apply. I still think that the customer is held by copyright law, ie he shouldn;t just copy it willy nilly, but no-one should be able to stop him burning it to a cd to play in his car
I do agree that casual pirates are, for the most part, neither here nor there. the professionals are where the problem is, they are the ones who dupe office half a million times and sell it. that I accept needs stamping out, but who really benefits by trying to jail someone for giving his mum a copy of office?
all these copy protection and access control mechanisms have little effect on the professionals, but get in the way of normal consumers, andf thats not right.
one of my goals in life is to set up a new country and try some of these idea's out. write a new system of justice, and politics etc. where personal freedom's are more important that government snooping and corporate profit.
alas that kind of thing needs money and lots of it, and it's something I've just not got. I need an extremely rich philanthropist to explain my ideas to and fund my venture. I really think a country like this would work. I have several ideas for it but I suspect they will rot away in my brain for evermore.
dave
PS. my other main goal in life is to own a zeppelin
err yeah, him too :)
one man's crisis is another man's opportunity and too many companies don't seem to aprreciate that.
dave
PS. "the chinese have a word that means both crisis and opportunity" "yes!!, crisa-tunity!"
I see your point, and I'm very glad that you're argueing you side with reason, and not just flaming me :)
:)
yes, I know we're not living in utopia and indeed I have both locks and alarms on my car and home, more's the pity.
I don't know, I think that there is much to be said for companies making sure they do things properly rather than do it half heartedly and then use the law to go the rest of the way. if they did it properly to begin with then there would be very few lawsuits as very few people would be capable of committing the crime in the first place.
directv's business plan involves spraying EM radiation across everyone in america, you get that radiation whether you are a customer or not. cable companies only send their signals to people who are paid up customers to some level. a cable co can, theoretically, only send the tv stations to each customer that the person is listed at head office as having paid for (I admit, I really don't know all the tech involved) but a satellite company can't do that so easily. thats a given fact thats known beforehand and must be taken into consideration. they obviously have done so when the decided to encrypt the signal, but if they're going to do so then they should do it properly instead of doing it badly and then bleating about it afterwards. it's like adobe complainging that someone broke their rot13 encryption and having someone arrested for it, ffs, they put it out there in the first place in that bad state and then they expect someone else to take responsibility for it.
yes, it costs money to develop all this, but that should be known beforehand and written into their plan. it's like companies who produce drugs, it would be alot cheaper for all concerned if they didn't have to go through all that silly fda testing before they hit the market, yet they do and thats known about beforehand. not everything should be produced at lowest cost, sometimes you have to pay extra to get a better product.
with a satellite company there will likely be people getting the signal who don't even live in the states (I guess that the signal overlaps into canada and mexico?). it seems to me that if you're publically broadcasting data at such a wide scale, you've got to expect that people will have a play with it.
going out of your way to evesdrop on someone is one thing but if you're sitting in your home, not constrained by any licences you've signed (as you might not be a customer of directv) etc, then why is decrypting some signals that come *to you* illegal?
who knows how much IP of aliens we've ignored by recording all that stuff at arecibo for example
talking about dvd's. the licencing costs for them are hideous, I think they are in the league of 70% of the retail cost goes to the dvd consortium in licencing money, however, I think most of the cost of that has nothing to do with pirates, and everything to do with wanting to control the market and squeeze some more cash out of the consumers. look at the infamous divx? (the dvd-like "expiring movie" concept, not the video file). I don't think that had any copy protection in it, it was purely based around selling someone a film and then restricting how they watch it (in this case, number of times).
why should I not be able to buy dvd's in america and watch them here. yes, I know I'm preaching to the converted here, and I know that I can (and have) had my player hacked to be multiregion, but why should I have to do these things? thats not about piracy, it's about control and I, like many here, don't like it.
I do find it very difficult to accept the idea of banning technology though, it's a short term measure at best, you can't stop the progress of humanity. banning the tech won't get rid of it, just make it harder to find. necessity is the mother of invention and if you force people to kake their technology hard to find, then they will find new and interesting ways of making it hard to find. if you force the companies to find new
Signals blasted into your own house are one thing, but it's something else when you're going around with the intent of eavesdropping. I mean, if it was the government tapping your phone line or intercepting your wireless you'd be pissed as hell wouldn't you?
:)
well, yes and no. I mean I'd still think it's wrong for someone to break into ibm to be within their WAP's, but of course thats trespassing anyway.
thing is that intent is difficult to prove. I suppose if you were caught in your car outside ibm redhandedly sniffing their code, then thats one thing, perhaps that would be an offence in my world. but doing the same thing while sat in your own home is another. I mean even the best crypto needs review and work done on it.
as for the gov, well, of course I would never want them listening in on me, but if they had a warrant (got via due process of course) then I think it's fair.
I have to admit, I don't have all the answer, I don't know all the details about how I want my country to turn out, but I have ideas, and I know the general direction I want it to run in.
but I'm enjoying the discussion anyways
dave
You don't have the right to do whatever you want with the waves that cross your property. A good example is mobile phone waves. It's illegal and wrong to snoop onto peoples' conversations based on the fact that their signals are crossing over your property
you're missing my logic. yes, I do think it's an invasion of privacy to listen to someone elses phone calls, but I also think the onus is on the phone companies to make the encryption of cellphone calls strong enough that people can't listen in.
and no, I don't buy the story that the authorities need the crypto to be weak so that they can listen to crims plan their next crime, cell phone conversations are only encrypted when over the air, they travel along the wires (ie from cellbase to the cell companies switches) in plaintext form and if the authorities have a warrant then they can listen there.
I'm a proponent of crypto, everyone should have access to it and it shouldn't be artifically weakened, if the authorities want to break it, then they should break it or find the guy who crypted it and ask for the keys. artificially weakening crypto will only hurt in the long run I think.
so frankly I think it should not be illegal for someone to try and crack the crypto on the mobile phone waves going over their property, but I also think that the phone co should have an obligation to make sure that the crypto for their phones is kept uptodate and that no-one cal break into it.
thoughts and comments?
dave
I was referrig to the latter case yes, but no, I don't think they should be made illegal, rhetorical question :)
dave
I don't know, when I drive by the IBM compound I am blasted with radiation. I guess if they wanted their information private they wouldn't use wireless phones and 802.11g connections.
I know you're being sarcastic, but why not consider it. they are broadcasting information, why shouldn't someone else listen. they don't have to break in or taps lines or lay bugs, all they are doing is sitting nearby. if two people are talking at normal volume in the library, are other ppl commiting crimes listening to them?
if ibm want to keep their info private then they should make sure it's encrypted to that others can't make any sense of the transmissions. thats alot more effective than trying to sue the listeners.
not that this idea is perfect, as it makes parabolic and laser mikes alot more acceptable, which I don't like. but I still think that if something is broadcast towards you, then you should not be made a criminal just by listening to it.
dave
besides, ITV digital going down got me a cheap itv digital box to watch freeview on, which is great for me. I got the pioneer one which my tivo is happily controlling. of course there still isn't much on, the extra 11 channels of whatever don't exactly blow my mind but hey, at least the picture quality is better than analogue.
shame that there isn't anything else I could pick up on it (or am I wrong?)
dave
In this case I can't buy the "substantial non-infringing use"
and there is a huge market for pirate video's too (as hilary rosen so vociferously predicted), should they have been made illegal too?
yes, there are alot of people who do use the cards to pirate signal, but there are also quite a few people who have legitimate uses for them and for drecttv to blanket sue *anyone* who has one is just plain wrong imho.
besides, there is a certain logic to say that the consumers are being sprayed with encrypted signal, why should someone else have a say in what they can do with the EM waves in their own property? if they can break the crypto, then perhaps directv should try making the technology better. after all, the consumers are passively receiving the signal, it's not like they are tapping into a private line.
dave
I'm an imap guy personally, I run my own mailserver, with spamassassin marking anything at 6 or over as spam and bouncing anything at 30 or over (I've not yet had a false positive that hgih so I figure it's probabaly safeish)
anyways, for me imap is a superset of pop3 and allows me to run webmail so I can read my mail when not at home too. TLS support too of course. I'm happy to leave my mail on the server, but then, it's my server so I don't have any limits on storage etc.
dave
I don't think he means "owns", I think he means "0wn5", ie they don't belong to him but he's got them thoroughly rooted.
dave
not really, it could be:
/=l/\\//\
fl4v3r
f14v3r
f14\/er
fl4\/u0r
f14\/|_|0r
etcetc
actually, doesn't rms want gnu/linux due to all the gnu tools in the normal linux base systems? well, if one is referring to just the kernel then surely linux on it's own is perfectly acceptable?
dave
actually, no it's not. it's just sods law, thats or the mandatory spelling mistake in a spelling flame.
dave
The proper complaint is that we didn't keep up with them. :-p
;)
ahh, you're from that part of american we colonised in an early expedition in the 1400's aren't you? it was a huge secret at the time, we wanted to get a head start on those spaniards. we sent the main contingent a few centuries later which is the one all the history books talk about
dave
try to find a Brit who still says "lorry" instead of "truck" and doesn't remember WW II first hand
actually, I use both, but then I also use the word billion when I mean 1,000,000,000,000, the american billion being a milliard of course.
dave
Seriously though, when you make a left-hand turn (across traffic here in the states) your tires spinning cause a force downwards, which causes your tires to grip the ground better. When turning right, they lift up, so people crossing traffic here have better grip on the ground than the people who drive on the non-right side of the road.
:)
I really wanna hear the scientific background for this one
dave
caveat emptor is one thing, but this is really taking the piss. a netapp is not bespoke software, even though it might be expensive. I don't mind a company getting paid a fair price for their product but this kind of lark puts me off them in the first place.
it's this kind of shit that got the doctorine of first sale pass for books
dave
the guy wasn't asking for free maintenance though, he was trying to buy maintenance, and thats only half the point. the company was telling them that they couldn't even use their netapp, even though they had paid for it.
:)
look, so what if it was bought off ebay, why does that matter? the item was bought originally and both the hardware and software was paid for upfront and I don;t hink that netapp have any moral reason to ask for any money. they just want money for old rope. it's been sold, let it go for fucks sake.
I'm unhappy enough with IP law and licencing etc as it is but when companies push it like that then that really does annoy me. mind you, perhaps it's the kind of thing the world needs to push forward a revolt over this kind of crap. one day the general populace will begin to understand all this and get annoyed and they're not going to let it go on.
vivre la revolution!
dave
PS. when I'm king it'll all change....