I'm shocked nobody has called bullshit on this one yet. Damn, dude. Check snopes.
First, Not. A. Dude. I'm a dyke, get it right. Second -- who gives a damn whether it's an urban legend or not, the point still stands. And if you want to drive the point home differently, we have entire libraries dedicated to containing our code of laws. Judicial rulings also form part of that code, and even a law professor will tell you the answer to any legal question these days is a definitive "maybe."
Why are we regulating cabbage? Are they requiring the price to be low to combat anti-competition tactics in cabbage syndicates?
The government has regulated the cost of food for a long time for many reasons...
1. The free market cannot be trusted to maintain price stability. If there was a sudden drop or rise in the price of food, then people might not be able to afford it, or in the reverse, that farmers would go bankrupt and supply would diminish. When it comes to basic needs things like food, electricity, water, stability often sought after.
2. There is no cabbage cabal, only Zuul.
3. Incorporating a price floor prevents large corporations from winning based on economy of scale -- they cannot undersell smaller operations, thus existing infrastructure (land, mainly) will never be repurposed at a lower cost. But it "protects rural america" doing this.
I disagree. The "forks" from original BSD weren't really forks. They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.
Berkeley "gave up" exactly once, in 1995. And it wasn't because they made room for others, but because of USL v. BSDi, a lawsuit that probably created the conditions for Linux to rise to power in the first place. Linus himself once said that had there been no legal ambiguity regarding the BSD code base, he probably wouldn't have started a completely new project from scratch.
Second, since you may be unaware of what a "fork" means, it's simply a point where developers take the existing code and then begin independent development on it. With the exception of Minix and Linux, every UNIX-like operating system has its code base derived from the original Unics in some fashion. Every UNIX variant EXCEPT Minux and Linux has forks that trace back to that.
Why does everyone keep treating them like a bunch of criminals?
Because the purpose of every country's legislative branch is to add laws, not remove them. The judiciary's job is to review laws, not remove them. And the executive branch's job is to suggest, review, and approve laws, not remove them. Therefore, the older the country, the more laws. And it doesn't take long before all the major ones required have been added, so there is an inevitable climb toward the bottom, to regulate even the smallest matters, until everyone is a criminal, though they may not know or consider themselves as such, in some fashion.
Consider this: The Ten Commandments contain 297 words, the Bill of Rights 463 words, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address 266 words. A recent federal directive regulating the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.
If everyone tests, the developers who are "sitting idle" are spending that idle time testing, no?
It would be pointless to test prior to integration of all submitted components. From the time the first component is completed and submitted and the last, those developers can test, but it's not meaningful if the goal is to evaluate the integrated product as a whole.
The video, if you watch it, is about how the OpenBSD team manages their releases, meets their agreed upon release dates, and makes sure that each release is a quality product.
Yes, and I'm noting that various cultural and political influences that come from the core developers have a substantial impact on all of the above, and then comparing those influences in similar projects (ie, Linux).
His points about managing the release process are just as valid if they were applied to manufacturing and releasing cars, paper products, or skateboards as they are to operating systems.
And I don't think anyone's going to argue there's a different corporate culture at Ford than Toyota and it translates directly to the products those respective brands produce.
They have different philosophies. I really don't know where you're going with that post because isn't very accurate.
You just said it: They have different philosophies. I'm answering the question of why, and what's come out of those approaches historically.
OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD are all operating systems. Linux, sorry to say, is not.
I think you're confusing the terms "operating system" and "distribution".
So, you have a million confusion projects going on based on the code all, called "Linux".
No, I believe they call themselves things like "Redhat" or "Gentoo", etc.
So, before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked, please get your facts straight.
Sir, a full exploration of all of the facts and an exhaustive comparison between all the Unix variants has been the subject of many books, panel discussions, conventions, and academic discourses, and has yet to be fully explored. I think that a high-level overview is both more productive, and better suited, for a humble posting on an electronic forum.
First, you buy a Hauppage HD-PVR, about the only consumer-level high-def recording box that handles up to 1080i via component inputs. Hey look, Myth supports it!
It costs $249 and only does component input (analog).
Now, for pesky HDMI... you buy a HD Fury 2, which takes HDMI (including HDCP!) and converts it to either RGB or Component outputs
And here again, analog outputs. And it'll set you back $300.
Now you have a high-def PVR solution, MythTV compatible.
PVR not included in the $549 cost of getting the signal into something useful. Aww crap, did I forget S&H and taxes? Umm... add a few more bucks.
Alternate methods is if your cablebox supports Firewire, and can output the high-def content over it (I've seen 'em where the SD content is output over Firewire, but the HD content isn't), but most satellite boxes don't have this, unfortunately.
Alternatively, you could plug a hacked PC card into the unit, and then have it stream everything out, without weird encryption and lock-downed hardware, onto a firewire cable attached to an old laptop with a fat external drive. Which would be cheaper, and have fewer components, and the quality would be 1:1 exact.
Never mind that none of this was necessary in 1985 when it was "Connect VCR to cable. Go."
Linux (1991--present): The code base has never forked. The release process has remained largely in the hands of Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds throughout its history, and except for some cosmetic differences, patch submission and integration has been handled the same way. Most people consider the two head developers and various major contributors to be, on the whole, pretty nice guys, though the snafu with loading binary blobs, and the driver architecture supporting 'non-free' elements in kernel-space was notable for the high level of frustration on all sides.
OpenBSD (1994--present): Forked from NetBSD (1993--present), who forked from 386BSD (1992--1994), that originally derived its codebase from BSD4 (1977--1995). The history of BSD is a blood-bath of politics leading to forks; Most of the developers of the *BSDs are variously referred to as "difficult, abrasive, etc.," although Theo, to his credit, has had a major change in reputation over the past several years.
Historically, the BSD variants have enjoyed a smaller uptake in the market and casual open source contributors find it difficult to get involved because of cultural/political differences. They also tend to fragment, as noted by the number of variants, which further weakens their position. Linux, on the other hand, likely enjoys a much broader userbase and more contributions due to its more relaxed community standards and the general approachability of its core team. I would say the "release process works", but by feature count, contributions, and hardware support, the process is full of fail. Does that mean it's a failed project? No--I'm just saying that the differing priorities and political/cultural values held by the core developers has had an overwhelming impact. Businesses might appreciate the consistency of the release schedule and the relatively bug-free nature of those releases, but looking at market share it's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses.
And to some extent, i think you might still be right.
Yeah, but don't tell the slashdot moderators that. Anything open source at a higher version number than before that's greeted with anything but open arms tends to go -1 pretty fast. It's heresy apparently to suggest that open source software be compared to commercial software; Having to compete on feature sets, interoperability, and user satisfaction is a lot harder than claiming moral superiority. -_- This is why open source still isn't taken seriously by businesses -- the mindset of its adherents is still blatantly immature.
You can still get "Tunerless" VCRs and DVD Burners. They take Component and Composite inputs and will record whatever they see onto DVD. But they really aren't able to control the box any.
Component and composite outputs on the back of every descrambler out there will spit it out in standard definition. You can't record HD signals out of them -- many won't even downgrade the signal, it'll just be dead. Getting high definition on any of those requires an HDMI hookup, which is encrypted, and therefore "tunerless" VCRs and DVD burners can't be used. Even getting signals OTA (not scrambled) doesn't do you much good because the tuners are usually integrated into the television. I haven't tuners being sold separately with HD outputs that can be sent to any COTS recording equipment. This is intentional, purposeful, and frankly conspiratorial on the part of the manufacturers.
Piracy is the only way the market for HD video recordings will survive.
So nmap went from a special purpose-built tool to a suite. Frack. Anyone here taking commissions on erecting a grave marker? UNIX is nice because it creates many little purpose-built utilities that can be strung together to perform complex tasks. This style of thinking seems to be going away in favor of integrated solutions that rather than doing one thing well do an umbrella of things passably okay. At least they haven't gone the approach yet of stuffing everything into a service that has to run all the time or the scanning engine will go stabby-bits on the user, which seems to be how "security" software runs on Windows... But it's only a matter of time.
Although it was eliminated by dubious judicial means shortly after becoming law, the DMCA allows for reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability. The entire market for these devices is based on non-interoperability. Because if the CAM became truly portable and emulated fully in software, it's a tiny step to a digital video recorder that is completely under user control receiving HDTV. Which is actually the main selling point here. They took our VCRs away, and now we're attacking people who want to get them back the only way possible; At this point it doesn't matter whether his intent was to sell descrambler boxes or not, or anyone's, because that's the only way you're getting that functionality. An irony, really, that you could be paying the same fees as someone with an "approved" box, accessing the same content, and yet wind up in jail because your equipment wasn't up to the provider's specifications... Namely, that you wanted to "time shift" the content.
Damn criminals, flaunting their freedoms in front of us... They get what they deserve, eh?
What does any of that have to do with the user once the software has left the developer's hands?
You did read the title of the post, right? It says "game developers should shut up". They won't, because the law says they can do it and it's a revenue stream. Nevermind the logistics, the social impact, or anything else -- it's legal. All the complaining and finger-pointing in the world won't change the fact that as long as a corporation CAN legally do it, they will, because the marginal cost of doing so will almost always be outweighed by the net return when your product is an intangible (a video game).
So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to? And your compelling argument is that you don't think it's worth that much? Never mind the topic, which tells them to "shut up", which is never a good way to start a debate. Here's a couple facts, my adorable little black hole of Clue: First, federal law says they can charge whatever they want, and they've got the rights to the work for the life of the developer plus a couple hundred years after that. Second, if they charged less, the games would suck badly enough that they'd no longer be worth even a slashdot post lamenting the lack of availability.
If you want to make a change here, fix the copyright laws, but don't tell game developers to "shut up", because they're the ones pulling doubles every day for months at a go, foregoing the comforts of a significant other, basic hygiene, and possibly their sanity--simply because that's what they love doing and don't mind being underpaid for it. Because it would be just your luck that they'd do exactly that, and then you'd be forced to do something other than masturbating to your level 80 elf huntress.
$5 won't buy you much if you buy the components individually. You need to buy them in lots -- in which case you can afford a lot more room to experiment. Also, some equipment can be re-used, like breadboards, multi-meters, etc. When considering the project's costs, don't neglect economy of scale. It might be cheaper for everyone to simply have a "lab fee" and buy enough to last a few years.
The judge is attempting to countermand the authority of the jury? Ah, I think someone's rusty on their Constitution. Jury's in this country have the ability to declare the law itself unconstitutional or cruel and unusual and have it struck down. It's not something judges like to advertise, and this one is probably concerned that they might wake up and say "hey wait a minute...", remember their Constitutional readings from high school, and put a big fat bullet in the entire debate.
Either that, or the judge wants to guarantee a whole new trial, because that's what a move like this is going to cause.
Umm, according to the technical specifications NASA itself published, the SSTV only had two modes -- 320 was the only mode used during the mission. The other mode, operating at 1280 lines, was never engaged according to mission reports from Apollo 9, 11, 13, and 14, which were the only ones to use a module capable of scanning higher than 320 lines (standard TV).
Where, pray tell, did these tapes come from if the machinery was never enabled to run in that operating mode?
I would be going to be very politically incorrect here, but people that are medically obese suffer a wide variety of ailments. If swine flu is what finally motivates these people to seek and complete treatment, why is this a bad thing? Or shall we continue to scream about the oppression of our right to be fat, forgetting that the virus doesn't give two sh--s either way.
In the near future, we design artificial intelligence and put it to work for us. In fifty years, biodegradable robots packaged in ecofriendly human hide take over. This'll just make it easier for them to recycle their dead while we work in their salt mines.
It's a stunning and amazing medical breakthrough -- finally, people don't have to be fat! In other news, eating a well balanced diet, excercise, seen sulking in the corner for not being hip enough. Dr. House overheard saying "It's stuff like this that makes me want to not dangle anymore."
He doesn't own and operate that router... which is a key point here.
In that case, why is he trusting any device that is outside his administrative control, and has no contractual agreement or working relationship of any kind, with the owner of said device? O.o
Slashdot Mirror
Spoken like a true anonymous coward. ^_^ Go ahead. Mod away. You only have five points.
I'm shocked nobody has called bullshit on this one yet. Damn, dude. Check snopes.
First, Not. A. Dude. I'm a dyke, get it right. Second -- who gives a damn whether it's an urban legend or not, the point still stands. And if you want to drive the point home differently, we have entire libraries dedicated to containing our code of laws. Judicial rulings also form part of that code, and even a law professor will tell you the answer to any legal question these days is a definitive "maybe."
Why are we regulating cabbage? Are they requiring the price to be low to combat anti-competition tactics in cabbage syndicates?
The government has regulated the cost of food for a long time for many reasons...
1. The free market cannot be trusted to maintain price stability. If there was a sudden drop or rise in the price of food, then people might not be able to afford it, or in the reverse, that farmers would go bankrupt and supply would diminish. When it comes to basic needs things like food, electricity, water, stability often sought after.
2. There is no cabbage cabal, only Zuul.
3. Incorporating a price floor prevents large corporations from winning based on economy of scale -- they cannot undersell smaller operations, thus existing infrastructure (land, mainly) will never be repurposed at a lower cost. But it "protects rural america" doing this.
I disagree. The "forks" from original BSD weren't really forks. They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.
Berkeley "gave up" exactly once, in 1995. And it wasn't because they made room for others, but because of USL v. BSDi, a lawsuit that probably created the conditions for Linux to rise to power in the first place. Linus himself once said that had there been no legal ambiguity regarding the BSD code base, he probably wouldn't have started a completely new project from scratch.
Second, since you may be unaware of what a "fork" means, it's simply a point where developers take the existing code and then begin independent development on it. With the exception of Minix and Linux, every UNIX-like operating system has its code base derived from the original Unics in some fashion. Every UNIX variant EXCEPT Minux and Linux has forks that trace back to that.
Why does everyone keep treating them like a bunch of criminals?
Because the purpose of every country's legislative branch is to add laws, not remove them. The judiciary's job is to review laws, not remove them. And the executive branch's job is to suggest, review, and approve laws, not remove them. Therefore, the older the country, the more laws. And it doesn't take long before all the major ones required have been added, so there is an inevitable climb toward the bottom, to regulate even the smallest matters, until everyone is a criminal, though they may not know or consider themselves as such, in some fashion.
Consider this: The Ten Commandments contain 297 words, the Bill of Rights 463 words, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address 266 words. A recent federal directive regulating the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.
If everyone tests, the developers who are "sitting idle" are spending that idle time testing, no?
It would be pointless to test prior to integration of all submitted components. From the time the first component is completed and submitted and the last, those developers can test, but it's not meaningful if the goal is to evaluate the integrated product as a whole.
The video, if you watch it, is about how the OpenBSD team manages their releases, meets their agreed upon release dates, and makes sure that each release is a quality product.
Yes, and I'm noting that various cultural and political influences that come from the core developers have a substantial impact on all of the above, and then comparing those influences in similar projects (ie, Linux).
His points about managing the release process are just as valid if they were applied to manufacturing and releasing cars, paper products, or skateboards as they are to operating systems.
And I don't think anyone's going to argue there's a different corporate culture at Ford than Toyota and it translates directly to the products those respective brands produce.
They have different philosophies. I really don't know where you're going with that post because isn't very accurate.
You just said it: They have different philosophies. I'm answering the question of why, and what's come out of those approaches historically.
OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD are all operating systems. Linux, sorry to say, is not.
I think you're confusing the terms "operating system" and "distribution".
So, you have a million confusion projects going on based on the code all, called "Linux".
No, I believe they call themselves things like "Redhat" or "Gentoo", etc.
So, before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked, please get your facts straight.
Sir, a full exploration of all of the facts and an exhaustive comparison between all the Unix variants has been the subject of many books, panel discussions, conventions, and academic discourses, and has yet to be fully explored. I think that a high-level overview is both more productive, and better suited, for a humble posting on an electronic forum.
First, you buy a Hauppage HD-PVR, about the only consumer-level high-def recording box that handles up to 1080i via component inputs. Hey look, Myth supports it!
It costs $249 and only does component input (analog).
Now, for pesky HDMI... you buy a HD Fury 2, which takes HDMI (including HDCP!) and converts it to either RGB or Component outputs
And here again, analog outputs. And it'll set you back $300.
Now you have a high-def PVR solution, MythTV compatible.
PVR not included in the $549 cost of getting the signal into something useful. Aww crap, did I forget S&H and taxes? Umm... add a few more bucks.
Alternate methods is if your cablebox supports Firewire, and can output the high-def content over it (I've seen 'em where the SD content is output over Firewire, but the HD content isn't), but most satellite boxes don't have this, unfortunately.
Alternatively, you could plug a hacked PC card into the unit, and then have it stream everything out, without weird encryption and lock-downed hardware, onto a firewire cable attached to an old laptop with a fat external drive. Which would be cheaper, and have fewer components, and the quality would be 1:1 exact.
Never mind that none of this was necessary in 1985 when it was "Connect VCR to cable. Go."
Let's compare --
Linux (1991--present): The code base has never forked. The release process has remained largely in the hands of Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds throughout its history, and except for some cosmetic differences, patch submission and integration has been handled the same way. Most people consider the two head developers and various major contributors to be, on the whole, pretty nice guys, though the snafu with loading binary blobs, and the driver architecture supporting 'non-free' elements in kernel-space was notable for the high level of frustration on all sides.
OpenBSD (1994--present): Forked from NetBSD (1993--present), who forked from 386BSD (1992--1994), that originally derived its codebase from BSD4 (1977--1995). The history of BSD is a blood-bath of politics leading to forks; Most of the developers of the *BSDs are variously referred to as "difficult, abrasive, etc.," although Theo, to his credit, has had a major change in reputation over the past several years.
Historically, the BSD variants have enjoyed a smaller uptake in the market and casual open source contributors find it difficult to get involved because of cultural/political differences. They also tend to fragment, as noted by the number of variants, which further weakens their position. Linux, on the other hand, likely enjoys a much broader userbase and more contributions due to its more relaxed community standards and the general approachability of its core team. I would say the "release process works", but by feature count, contributions, and hardware support, the process is full of fail. Does that mean it's a failed project? No--I'm just saying that the differing priorities and political/cultural values held by the core developers has had an overwhelming impact. Businesses might appreciate the consistency of the release schedule and the relatively bug-free nature of those releases, but looking at market share it's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses.
Nice troll you have there. Open source gets lots of things right -- and -- lots of things wrong.
And my only point was that the slashdot moderators (which by proxy is the slashdot readership) does not like to hear this.
And to some extent, i think you might still be right.
Yeah, but don't tell the slashdot moderators that. Anything open source at a higher version number than before that's greeted with anything but open arms tends to go -1 pretty fast. It's heresy apparently to suggest that open source software be compared to commercial software; Having to compete on feature sets, interoperability, and user satisfaction is a lot harder than claiming moral superiority. -_- This is why open source still isn't taken seriously by businesses -- the mindset of its adherents is still blatantly immature.
You can still get "Tunerless" VCRs and DVD Burners. They take Component and Composite inputs and will record whatever they see onto DVD. But they really aren't able to control the box any.
Component and composite outputs on the back of every descrambler out there will spit it out in standard definition. You can't record HD signals out of them -- many won't even downgrade the signal, it'll just be dead. Getting high definition on any of those requires an HDMI hookup, which is encrypted, and therefore "tunerless" VCRs and DVD burners can't be used. Even getting signals OTA (not scrambled) doesn't do you much good because the tuners are usually integrated into the television. I haven't tuners being sold separately with HD outputs that can be sent to any COTS recording equipment. This is intentional, purposeful, and frankly conspiratorial on the part of the manufacturers.
Piracy is the only way the market for HD video recordings will survive.
So nmap went from a special purpose-built tool to a suite. Frack. Anyone here taking commissions on erecting a grave marker? UNIX is nice because it creates many little purpose-built utilities that can be strung together to perform complex tasks. This style of thinking seems to be going away in favor of integrated solutions that rather than doing one thing well do an umbrella of things passably okay. At least they haven't gone the approach yet of stuffing everything into a service that has to run all the time or the scanning engine will go stabby-bits on the user, which seems to be how "security" software runs on Windows... But it's only a matter of time.
Although it was eliminated by dubious judicial means shortly after becoming law, the DMCA allows for reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability. The entire market for these devices is based on non-interoperability. Because if the CAM became truly portable and emulated fully in software, it's a tiny step to a digital video recorder that is completely under user control receiving HDTV. Which is actually the main selling point here. They took our VCRs away, and now we're attacking people who want to get them back the only way possible; At this point it doesn't matter whether his intent was to sell descrambler boxes or not, or anyone's, because that's the only way you're getting that functionality. An irony, really, that you could be paying the same fees as someone with an "approved" box, accessing the same content, and yet wind up in jail because your equipment wasn't up to the provider's specifications... Namely, that you wanted to "time shift" the content.
Damn criminals, flaunting their freedoms in front of us... They get what they deserve, eh?
What does any of that have to do with the user once the software has left the developer's hands?
You did read the title of the post, right? It says "game developers should shut up". They won't, because the law says they can do it and it's a revenue stream. Nevermind the logistics, the social impact, or anything else -- it's legal. All the complaining and finger-pointing in the world won't change the fact that as long as a corporation CAN legally do it, they will, because the marginal cost of doing so will almost always be outweighed by the net return when your product is an intangible (a video game).
Game developers aren't the problem; The law is.
So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to? And your compelling argument is that you don't think it's worth that much? Never mind the topic, which tells them to "shut up", which is never a good way to start a debate. Here's a couple facts, my adorable little black hole of Clue: First, federal law says they can charge whatever they want, and they've got the rights to the work for the life of the developer plus a couple hundred years after that. Second, if they charged less, the games would suck badly enough that they'd no longer be worth even a slashdot post lamenting the lack of availability.
If you want to make a change here, fix the copyright laws, but don't tell game developers to "shut up", because they're the ones pulling doubles every day for months at a go, foregoing the comforts of a significant other, basic hygiene, and possibly their sanity--simply because that's what they love doing and don't mind being underpaid for it. Because it would be just your luck that they'd do exactly that, and then you'd be forced to do something other than masturbating to your level 80 elf huntress.
$5 won't buy you much if you buy the components individually. You need to buy them in lots -- in which case you can afford a lot more room to experiment. Also, some equipment can be re-used, like breadboards, multi-meters, etc. When considering the project's costs, don't neglect economy of scale. It might be cheaper for everyone to simply have a "lab fee" and buy enough to last a few years.
The judge is attempting to countermand the authority of the jury? Ah, I think someone's rusty on their Constitution. Jury's in this country have the ability to declare the law itself unconstitutional or cruel and unusual and have it struck down. It's not something judges like to advertise, and this one is probably concerned that they might wake up and say "hey wait a minute...", remember their Constitutional readings from high school, and put a big fat bullet in the entire debate.
Either that, or the judge wants to guarantee a whole new trial, because that's what a move like this is going to cause.
Umm, according to the technical specifications NASA itself published, the SSTV only had two modes -- 320 was the only mode used during the mission. The other mode, operating at 1280 lines, was never engaged according to mission reports from Apollo 9, 11, 13, and 14, which were the only ones to use a module capable of scanning higher than 320 lines (standard TV).
Where, pray tell, did these tapes come from if the machinery was never enabled to run in that operating mode?
I would be going to be very politically incorrect here, but people that are medically obese suffer a wide variety of ailments. If swine flu is what finally motivates these people to seek and complete treatment, why is this a bad thing? Or shall we continue to scream about the oppression of our right to be fat, forgetting that the virus doesn't give two sh--s either way.
On the PS3, the effort is equivalent to about 14 full 56-bit DES key searches!
Isn't DES still used by the financial industry, most often for wire fund transfers and ATMs? 3DES, specifically. *shakes head* They're doomed.
In the near future, we design artificial intelligence and put it to work for us. In fifty years, biodegradable robots packaged in ecofriendly human hide take over. This'll just make it easier for them to recycle their dead while we work in their salt mines.
It's a stunning and amazing medical breakthrough -- finally, people don't have to be fat! In other news, eating a well balanced diet, excercise, seen sulking in the corner for not being hip enough. Dr. House overheard saying "It's stuff like this that makes me want to not dangle anymore."
He doesn't own and operate that router... which is a key point here.
In that case, why is he trusting any device that is outside his administrative control, and has no contractual agreement or working relationship of any kind, with the owner of said device? O.o