your phone calls are already someone else's business (the phone companies). And most of them gave up your info willingly. I'm afraid in this one, it is the phone companies you should be mad at, not the government.
And you don't think the government should be called, in sworn and complete and public testimony, to explain why it thinks it has the rights to this data? And then to not explain precisely, in full and complete detail, in uncensored sworn public testimony, exactly how it uses it? There are reasons why telephone providers might need this data (to know how its systems are used, to improve them, etc) but the telephone companies are also expected to not just roll over and give the data to someone else who does not have a warrant.
Or do you think it's OK for me to get hold of your records without permission? Haven't you noticed how much anger there is over cell phone record sales, sales of records that were gained without a warrant and disclosed without the permission of the account holder?
On the other hand, I wouldn't object at all to the same cameras if the conditions were "they are a temporary fixture so that we can track down and arrest a serial killer who was recently spotted entering your house." Heck, I'd help them install the things!
Do you really think that once the serial killer is caught, the cameras will be removed? There will always be another reason trumped up by the government to keep them there to watch you. They have not given reason to believe otherwise and in fact have repeatedly shown that they don't care about the will of the people but only about their selfish selves, even when what they are doing has no proven benefit (where are the studies that show that having this data will really help perform the function the government clams it does?).
If the government wants to do what it is doing, it needs to say exactly why and how and back it up with actual evidence that such a system works, and prove to the people with an extensive, technical, hands-on explanation, and back it up with proof that they actually are doing what they say they are.
The fact that the Justice Department claimed it would investigate and then didn't doesn't give me any faith in them.
Well, if they don't value their security sufficiently, their privacy will be moot because they will be dead. So this 63% are not stupid, as the liberal left constantly alleges, but happy for the powers that be to use one of the few tools they have to give us some small protection from suicidal, religiously deranged nihilists.
So let me get this straight. You think the government should be able to just basically ignore laws requiring warrants and oversight and just do whatever it wants without any assurance to the people (and "we're protecting your privacy" sound bites don't count)? You think that the hundreds of years of laws that exist to protect the people from government abuses aren't there for a reason? If you really think governments don't abuse their people to get richer and more powerful at their expense, open your eyes and look around. IT HAPPENS.
Serving the people by keeping them safe is a function of the government. Violating their rights and not being accountable to those same people is not. The government must carry out its protection function while at the same time obeying the laws and making itself accountable and carry out the function of not abusing the people.
The government should not have this data without a search warrant. End of story. The warrant laws exist to protect you against the government being able to randomly accuse you of whatever it wants to whenever it wants to, and the history of warrant and wiretapping law is very long.
The government has yet to show a warrant, properly signed by a judge, to allow it to have this data.
And if you don't understand why oversight is required, what are you doing out of high school? How did you graduate with having apparently failed the required civics courses?
And you aren't? There is no logical reason to assign some deity(ies) every little thing that you don't understand. It just means that you are unwilling to try to understand or just want an easy explanation. What could be easier than handwaving and saying that Deity X did it?
Volkswagon? Who are they? I've never heard of them.
Now, I do happen to be a member of the local Volkswagen club (founding member), and am a member of a users' community that has users from all over the world. Volkswagen, I've heard of.
'Why don't they go and tell the oil companies what they should charge for their damn gas?'
That might be what happens, or more regulation could happen.
Don't make knee-jerk comments without thinking first. Because the answer could very well be "Actually, we're going to do that, and we're going to come down on your ass too."
Hmm, I don't use the Windows version often (I mostly use my Windows system for gaming) but I do know that if you run msconfig, you can get rid of a lot of the crud that runs at startup, including QT; give it a try.
Maybe it has to do with the websites we read but I tend to see a rather lot of stuff encoded in WMV just as much as I see a lot of stuff in Quicktime (but not as much as WMV).
I'd like to see all media formats opened up too so that any player can play any video, but as long as companies want to make money via lock-in, it will be difficult -- how often do you see stuff encoded in mpeg? (I see some, but nowhere near as much as I would like).
QuickTime already does work on the codec system, and on the Mac side at least (as I mentioned) you can get a codec that will allow QT Player to play WMV files. I am not sure if you can do the reverse and play QT.mov files in WMP -- can you?
RealPlayer is the worst of the lot since I haven't found anything other than RealPlayer that can play the files. And if I have a legit reason to want to archive something, all three formats manage to be idiotic sometimes and make it impossible.
I think the problem is mostly the money-grubbing managers and executives, though. The openness and interchangeability we both want is there but is hardly ever used due to the greed of the corporations that write the software.
Did you even read what I wrote, or run the test? I've found no network traffic that "reports what the user does."
Yes. I also read the part where the user agreement states that Viewpoint places a unique identifier on each PC which means that there is tracking of some kind. If there wasn't, what would the unique ID be needed for?
You aren't paranoid if there really is something going on.
Well... yes, the Windows version can do those things, but I'm pretty sure you can disable the "run at startup" with a checkmark in preferences or in the installer.
Just deny the go-pro screen; that is the one annoyance that I really do agree with you on. But it'll still play movies just fine if you deny it.
It does play full screen -- if you go pro. Kind of annoying. I'm not sure how annoying to say that that is, as I don't use the feature much.
But... as for the forcing to use a specific player? I point out that it can play standards-based movies as well and play WMP movies with the right codecs (at least on Macs)... and that Windows Media is also proprietary and so is RealVideo. Silly, but at least there is a choice on the part of content creators to use open formats that any player can play; I blame them just as much as I blame the player makers.
Re:Only useful if you live in a small group of cit
on
Self-Serve Car Rental
·
· Score: 1
I don't drive in the city itself often but some of the roads I do drive on have crappy sync. I did read in the local paper that there's going to be at least one project to fix some of the light sync problems. Too bad I don't remember where that was.
You would think that accelerating to the speed limit as soon as you leave a red light would get you greens. But nooooooooooo.
What's the difference, when you say that the developers of whatever protocols you're attacking must be responsible for piracy since their protocols are widely used to enable it? And by extension of that you've implied that they are somehow responsible. And in case you hadn't noticed, that kind of attitude means "shut it down" without outright saying so.
Why are you excusing HTTP and FTP while condemning gnutella and fasttrack? One is no more guilty than another. It's PEOPLE who are guilty.
But I guess you don't want to accept that people have to accept responsibility for their actions, not some convenient target that is easy to find and sue.
Being a science geek I watch CSI, too. But I have to laugh at the irony here: watching in HD a show which frequently does BS crap like get a 1024x768 perfectly-sharp image from a crappy VGA-resolution or worse security camera. I'd like to know how they're doing that, because as far as I know it's impossible to insert back data never recorded by the camera in the first place.
I guess they're using computers with flux-capacitor PCI cards...
I'm quite happy with DVD for now - and I'll be damned if I'm going to buy either standard for the foreseeable future.
Exactly. Why bother? It's so much less expensive to use standard DVD, I already have the equipment, there are lots of movies available, my TV upsamples to get close to HD resolution (it can't resolve small stuff that was never resolvable in the first place -- not like those magical photoshop plugins CSI has --, but it makes the picture look much better).
And then look at the prices. $300 and up for a player? That doesn't work with just any TV? (It will work with mine but that's beside the point). I got my player for $50, a couple of years ago. The most recent DVD acquisition cost me $10. Why should I spend hundreds for a player and then 3-5 times what I pay now for movies?
No thanks. They've hit the point of diminishing returns. And then there's the fact that I can play back the disks I have now on just about anything, extract content from them (I have a few tracks from a live concert disc in MP3 format in my music library, so I can listen to it at work or in the car). And then there's the fact that it's just too much hassle to switch.
The only thing I am interested in HD-DVD and Blu-ray for? Data storage at work. Once I figure out which one is going to catch on I will buy blanks and a burner and make sure that all the computers in the lab can read the media, and start dumping data to those discs. We have thousands of disks right now and I'm rapidly running out of storage space, and the idea of disks that can hold 20-25 GB of data, not just 4.3 or 8.6, is something that has me waiting to see where this goes.
the 480-line output of standard definition production hides the imperfections in erotic actors' skin.
That sort of thing is a lot of why it's so much more expensive to make an HD program over an SD one. Every imperfection shows up where previously, it would be hidden by the low resolution of the camera.
"Star Trek" took advantage of this in its Next Generation series -- the red labels on all sorts of access panels have a visible number on them that you would think is for inventory control or for referring to the panel in the service manual for mechanics. And they are -- but each panel also has some lettering on it that you would think describes what's in it ("power conduits, 220V") -- but that's not what they say. They say things like "No user serviceable parts inside" or "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear" or "300,000 km/sec -- not just a good idea, it's the law."
I would love to see TNG re-released in HD, but it can't be as far as I'm aware because it was filmed using SD equipment as HD wasn't even a speck on the event horizon at the time (1987-1995).
And how is it a straw man to point out that these networks are designed to share anything, and therefore don't exist just to enable piracy? You are advocating the shutdown of any protocol that is used to widely pirate stuff. Which means you are advocating the shutdown of FTP, Bittorrent, HTTP, and instant messaging -- all of which are widely used to infringe copyrights.
Looks like the one who is putting together nonsensical arguments is you.
And yet a VCR is usually used to record copyrighted programming off TV and most tape decks are used to record copyrighted sounds from the radio. They're still legal. Guns are often used to kill people and yet are still legal (with usage and ownership restrictions, but still legal). Cars can be used to kill people, but are still legal. Poisons (rat, etc) are used in murders but are still legal. If any of these items are misused, it's not the fault of the builder or provider of any of them, it's the fault of the person who did something illegal.
And you're wrong on the switchblades, too... Wikipedia says, in the switchblade article:
A common misconception is that switchblades are illegal through out the entire United States. In actuality, switch blades are usually restricted on a state or local level, the one exception being the Federal Switchblade Act, signed August 12, 1958, which concerns the interstate sale of switchblades, aside from contractors to government agencies. In addition, switchblades are also illegal to import into the United States. However, several states freely allow the purchase and or carry of switchblade knives.
Placing restrictions on the sale of an item does not make that item illegal in the way you seem to want it to be. It just means that you have to meet certain requirements, but the item is still legal. And it's your fault if you misuse it.
Neither of the two companies in question has any control what the users do with the communications service in question.
So there should not be a different standard.
Only useful if you live in a small group of cities
on
Self-Serve Car Rental
·
· Score: 1
If you live elsewhere, you're screwed, even if the city you live in is very large and well known. It's been around for 6 years and this is all there is? They're asleep if they think people wouldn't be interested in places like St. Louis that have crappy mass transit systems (I'm still waiting for the light rail line to open near me so I can get to work by biking to the station).
Unless it's called Quicktime, in which case just burn the computer. Before all the Apple fans get upset, I'm not suggesting that Quickime is spyware. No, I'm merely suggesting that it's the crappiest, most irritating piece of software ever shat into existence by anybody.
I'm a Mac user, yes, but honestly -- I don't find it that annoying. It plays movies. It plays audio. It also doesn't reinstall itself or try to access the outside world unless you ask it to. How is it annoying and crappy? It also does a good job at video playback and editing. (I think of WMP when I try to think of annoying, crappy media players, or Realplayer).
And that's sabotage and vandalism. I never grant permission for anything to install itself if I have removed it. I don't use AIM, but I'd sure be upset about that if I did, if it's true.
Slashdot Mirror
your phone calls are already someone else's business (the phone companies). And most of them gave up your info willingly. I'm afraid in this one, it is the phone companies you should be mad at, not the government.
And you don't think the government should be called, in sworn and complete and public testimony, to explain why it thinks it has the rights to this data? And then to not explain precisely, in full and complete detail, in uncensored sworn public testimony, exactly how it uses it? There are reasons why telephone providers might need this data (to know how its systems are used, to improve them, etc) but the telephone companies are also expected to not just roll over and give the data to someone else who does not have a warrant.
Or do you think it's OK for me to get hold of your records without permission? Haven't you noticed how much anger there is over cell phone record sales, sales of records that were gained without a warrant and disclosed without the permission of the account holder?
On the other hand, I wouldn't object at all to the same cameras if the conditions were "they are a temporary fixture so that we can track down and arrest a serial killer who was recently spotted entering your house." Heck, I'd help them install the things!
Do you really think that once the serial killer is caught, the cameras will be removed? There will always be another reason trumped up by the government to keep them there to watch you. They have not given reason to believe otherwise and in fact have repeatedly shown that they don't care about the will of the people but only about their selfish selves, even when what they are doing has no proven benefit (where are the studies that show that having this data will really help perform the function the government clams it does?).
If the government wants to do what it is doing, it needs to say exactly why and how and back it up with actual evidence that such a system works, and prove to the people with an extensive, technical, hands-on explanation, and back it up with proof that they actually are doing what they say they are.
The fact that the Justice Department claimed it would investigate and then didn't doesn't give me any faith in them.
Well, if they don't value their security sufficiently, their privacy will be moot because they will be dead. So this 63% are not stupid, as the liberal left constantly alleges, but happy for the powers that be to use one of the few tools they have to give us some small protection from suicidal, religiously deranged nihilists.
So let me get this straight. You think the government should be able to just basically ignore laws requiring warrants and oversight and just do whatever it wants without any assurance to the people (and "we're protecting your privacy" sound bites don't count)? You think that the hundreds of years of laws that exist to protect the people from government abuses aren't there for a reason? If you really think governments don't abuse their people to get richer and more powerful at their expense, open your eyes and look around. IT HAPPENS.
Serving the people by keeping them safe is a function of the government. Violating their rights and not being accountable to those same people is not. The government must carry out its protection function while at the same time obeying the laws and making itself accountable and carry out the function of not abusing the people.
Why do you hate America?
The government should not have this data without a search warrant. End of story. The warrant laws exist to protect you against the government being able to randomly accuse you of whatever it wants to whenever it wants to, and the history of warrant and wiretapping law is very long.
The government has yet to show a warrant, properly signed by a judge, to allow it to have this data.
And if you don't understand why oversight is required, what are you doing out of high school? How did you graduate with having apparently failed the required civics courses?
And you aren't? There is no logical reason to assign some deity(ies) every little thing that you don't understand. It just means that you are unwilling to try to understand or just want an easy explanation. What could be easier than handwaving and saying that Deity X did it?
I prefer the term "Geek".
(You feel a tap on the shoulder)
...
Excuse me? Over here
A consumer bought a Volkswagon
Volkswagon? Who are they? I've never heard of them.
Now, I do happen to be a member of the local Volkswagen club (founding member), and am a member of a users' community that has users from all over the world. Volkswagen, I've heard of.
'Why don't they go and tell the oil companies what they should charge for their damn gas?'
That might be what happens, or more regulation could happen.
Don't make knee-jerk comments without thinking first. Because the answer could very well be "Actually, we're going to do that, and we're going to come down on your ass too."
This guy is potentially eating his own toes.
Hmm, I don't use the Windows version often (I mostly use my Windows system for gaming) but I do know that if you run msconfig, you can get rid of a lot of the crud that runs at startup, including QT; give it a try.
.mov files in WMP -- can you?
Maybe it has to do with the websites we read but I tend to see a rather lot of stuff encoded in WMV just as much as I see a lot of stuff in Quicktime (but not as much as WMV).
I'd like to see all media formats opened up too so that any player can play any video, but as long as companies want to make money via lock-in, it will be difficult -- how often do you see stuff encoded in mpeg? (I see some, but nowhere near as much as I would like).
QuickTime already does work on the codec system, and on the Mac side at least (as I mentioned) you can get a codec that will allow QT Player to play WMV files. I am not sure if you can do the reverse and play QT
RealPlayer is the worst of the lot since I haven't found anything other than RealPlayer that can play the files. And if I have a legit reason to want to archive something, all three formats manage to be idiotic sometimes and make it impossible.
I think the problem is mostly the money-grubbing managers and executives, though. The openness and interchangeability we both want is there but is hardly ever used due to the greed of the corporations that write the software.
Tivos can also room share shows.
Did you even read what I wrote, or run the test?
I've found no network traffic that "reports what the user does."
Yes. I also read the part where the user agreement states that Viewpoint places a unique identifier on each PC which means that there is tracking of some kind. If there wasn't, what would the unique ID be needed for?
You aren't paranoid if there really is something going on.
Well ... yes, the Windows version can do those things, but I'm pretty sure you can disable the "run at startup" with a checkmark in preferences or in the installer.
... as for the forcing to use a specific player? I point out that it can play standards-based movies as well and play WMP movies with the right codecs (at least on Macs)... and that Windows Media is also proprietary and so is RealVideo. Silly, but at least there is a choice on the part of content creators to use open formats that any player can play; I blame them just as much as I blame the player makers.
Just deny the go-pro screen; that is the one annoyance that I really do agree with you on. But it'll still play movies just fine if you deny it.
It does play full screen -- if you go pro. Kind of annoying. I'm not sure how annoying to say that that is, as I don't use the feature much.
But
I don't drive in the city itself often but some of the roads I do drive on have crappy sync. I did read in the local paper that there's going to be at least one project to fix some of the light sync problems. Too bad I don't remember where that was.
You would think that accelerating to the speed limit as soon as you leave a red light would get you greens. But nooooooooooo.
What's the difference, when you say that the developers of whatever protocols you're attacking must be responsible for piracy since their protocols are widely used to enable it? And by extension of that you've implied that they are somehow responsible. And in case you hadn't noticed, that kind of attitude means "shut it down" without outright saying so.
Why are you excusing HTTP and FTP while condemning gnutella and fasttrack? One is no more guilty than another. It's PEOPLE who are guilty.
But I guess you don't want to accept that people have to accept responsibility for their actions, not some convenient target that is easy to find and sue.
I now watch HD shows like CSI
...
Being a science geek I watch CSI, too. But I have to laugh at the irony here: watching in HD a show which frequently does BS crap like get a 1024x768 perfectly-sharp image from a crappy VGA-resolution or worse security camera. I'd like to know how they're doing that, because as far as I know it's impossible to insert back data never recorded by the camera in the first place.
I guess they're using computers with flux-capacitor PCI cards
I'm quite happy with DVD for now - and I'll be damned if I'm going to buy either standard for the foreseeable future.
Exactly. Why bother? It's so much less expensive to use standard DVD, I already have the equipment, there are lots of movies available, my TV upsamples to get close to HD resolution (it can't resolve small stuff that was never resolvable in the first place -- not like those magical photoshop plugins CSI has --, but it makes the picture look much better).
And then look at the prices. $300 and up for a player? That doesn't work with just any TV? (It will work with mine but that's beside the point). I got my player for $50, a couple of years ago. The most recent DVD acquisition cost me $10. Why should I spend hundreds for a player and then 3-5 times what I pay now for movies?
No thanks. They've hit the point of diminishing returns. And then there's the fact that I can play back the disks I have now on just about anything, extract content from them (I have a few tracks from a live concert disc in MP3 format in my music library, so I can listen to it at work or in the car). And then there's the fact that it's just too much hassle to switch.
The only thing I am interested in HD-DVD and Blu-ray for? Data storage at work. Once I figure out which one is going to catch on I will buy blanks and a burner and make sure that all the computers in the lab can read the media, and start dumping data to those discs. We have thousands of disks right now and I'm rapidly running out of storage space, and the idea of disks that can hold 20-25 GB of data, not just 4.3 or 8.6, is something that has me waiting to see where this goes.
the 480-line output of standard definition production hides the imperfections in erotic actors' skin.
That sort of thing is a lot of why it's so much more expensive to make an HD program over an SD one. Every imperfection shows up where previously, it would be hidden by the low resolution of the camera.
"Star Trek" took advantage of this in its Next Generation series -- the red labels on all sorts of access panels have a visible number on them that you would think is for inventory control or for referring to the panel in the service manual for mechanics. And they are -- but each panel also has some lettering on it that you would think describes what's in it ("power conduits, 220V") -- but that's not what they say. They say things like "No user serviceable parts inside" or "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear" or "300,000 km/sec -- not just a good idea, it's the law."
I would love to see TNG re-released in HD, but it can't be as far as I'm aware because it was filmed using SD equipment as HD wasn't even a speck on the event horizon at the time (1987-1995).
And how is it a straw man to point out that these networks are designed to share anything, and therefore don't exist just to enable piracy? You are advocating the shutdown of any protocol that is used to widely pirate stuff. Which means you are advocating the shutdown of FTP, Bittorrent, HTTP, and instant messaging -- all of which are widely used to infringe copyrights.
Looks like the one who is putting together nonsensical arguments is you.
And yet a VCR is usually used to record copyrighted programming off TV and most tape decks are used to record copyrighted sounds from the radio. They're still legal. Guns are often used to kill people and yet are still legal (with usage and ownership restrictions, but still legal). Cars can be used to kill people, but are still legal. Poisons (rat, etc) are used in murders but are still legal. If any of these items are misused, it's not the fault of the builder or provider of any of them, it's the fault of the person who did something illegal.
And you're wrong on the switchblades, too... Wikipedia says, in the switchblade article:
A common misconception is that switchblades are illegal through out the entire United States. In actuality, switch blades are usually restricted on a state or local level, the one exception being the Federal Switchblade Act, signed August 12, 1958, which concerns the interstate sale of switchblades, aside from contractors to government agencies. In addition, switchblades are also illegal to import into the United States. However, several states freely allow the purchase and or carry of switchblade knives.
Placing restrictions on the sale of an item does not make that item illegal in the way you seem to want it to be. It just means that you have to meet certain requirements, but the item is still legal. And it's your fault if you misuse it.
You missed the point.
Neither of the two companies in question has any control what the users do with the communications service in question.
So there should not be a different standard.
If you live elsewhere, you're screwed, even if the city you live in is very large and well known. It's been around for 6 years and this is all there is? They're asleep if they think people wouldn't be interested in places like St. Louis that have crappy mass transit systems (I'm still waiting for the light rail line to open near me so I can get to work by biking to the station).
VIEWPOINT IS NOT SPYWARE! They are checking for updates and updating their player. Sorry to dissapoint... Sometimes the truth hurts.
And sneaking onto systems and reporting what the user does using a unique ID, and showing ads, is not spyware? That's pretty much textbook spyware.
Sorry to dissapoint. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Unless it's called Quicktime, in which case just burn the computer. Before all the Apple fans get upset, I'm not suggesting that Quickime is spyware. No, I'm merely suggesting that it's the crappiest, most irritating piece of software ever shat into existence by anybody.
I'm a Mac user, yes, but honestly -- I don't find it that annoying. It plays movies. It plays audio. It also doesn't reinstall itself or try to access the outside world unless you ask it to. How is it annoying and crappy? It also does a good job at video playback and editing. (I think of WMP when I try to think of annoying, crappy media players, or Realplayer).
AIM reinstalled viewpoint the next time it is run
And that's sabotage and vandalism. I never grant permission for anything to install itself if I have removed it. I don't use AIM, but I'd sure be upset about that if I did, if it's true.