First of all, your "evidence" is on Sdem's Trollaxor site. But let's assume it is accurate anyway. The document says "Author: Anonymous". So he isn't even claiming to have written it. Fyodor puts up all sorts of shit from other people on his web page
In which case, all Fyodor has to do to protect his reputation is to reveal who submitted the article to insecure.org - simple no?
It would be nice if someone could provide a link to such evidence
I almost suspect that you are attempting to 'troll the trolls' here, but on the offchance that you have not seen the infamous page already, here it is. Happy now?
Even better, what about a video file named , for example, starwarsdivx.avi which actually contains a 10-minute still of Christmas Island's most infamous export accompanied by a maximum-volume 1kHz tone...?
Also in my part of the UK, a 'cracker' is a particularly attractive person of the sex to which one is attracted. EG one might say 'You know that Natalie Portman, she's a cracker'.
The nightmare that immediately jumped into my mind is that this "protection layer" could come to involve brief advertisements from our favorite corporations, prepended to the beginning of every song.
Handing more power to the authorities doesn't always reduce crimes against the individual (robbery, violence etc) because they're mostly concerned with protecting the system, not the individual - I live in the UK too (somewhere in the Midlands) and where I am a few years back there was an epidemic of drugs and burglaries but the only time the police took any notice was to hit a bloody PIRATE RADIO STATION - does that tell you something?
In fact it wouldn't surprise me if the police, courts etc weren't deliberately going easy on regular thugs to instill just the sort of thinking you express, leading support to the measures they want - and n.b. practically every measure intended to protect individuals has been twisted (eg the first ever prosecution under the Race Relations Act in the UK was against a black power activist who dissed a cop, and a law brought in supposedly to protect women from stalkers has in practice been mostly used against anti-corporate protesters).
The quote from Thomas Jefferson that regularly turns up here sums it up - if you're willing to trade liberty for security, you deserve and will get neither.
Just to clarify this, it's not actually 'removing the code chip' - for reliable multi-region playback, you need a chip that contains all six region codes as often discs won't play if they don't recognise a particular region code (eg if it's an R1 disc, it will only play if it sees a specific R1 code in the player chip, likewise an R2 might only play if R2 is present)
Eazy-N.
>This violates 3 important acts that have are >active in Britian according to the Observer:
>1.Human Rights Act
>2.European Union Law
>3.Data Protection Act
Yes, but unless you have a few thousand pounds to spare dragging it through the courts those three acts are as much use to you as toilet roll as the British Govt is well known for using taxpayers money to spend those very same taxpayers into oblivion - particularly disturbing example:
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/encosts.htm
As for the technical hurdles, maybe true now, but give technological advancement a few years and who knows?
And finally:
>The last reason is Political Ramifications. >There are very serious human rights concerns >with something like this
Unfortunately, nothing that a few hysterical scare stories won't cure. Not to mention the ongoing case in which the HRA is being used against speed cameras - I see the headlines now, 'Crazy Euro Law Lets Speed Freaks Endanger Your Children' followed shortly by a panicky loophole that says the HRA doesn't apply 'where safety of life is concerned' - bingo, one precedent: next, a few press releases about terrorists, paedophiles etc. on the net and *BANG* said loophole is applied to RIP.
Not all IE installations have msn.com as default homepage. IE Administration Kit allows PC suppliers, ISPs etc. to change the default home page to theirs, among other things (like changing the spinning globe animation).
Take It Eazy
N.
> Not often myself, but on those occasions I do I just like to mention that wonderful success story (not) called the Soviet Union - that usually foxes them:-)
Re your point 2 - don't be too sure about the Human Rights Act and the ECHR providing a defence. There was a recent UK court ruling that speed cameras are a violation of privacy under said act - so it's only a matter of time before HMG supported by the road safety lobby get an exemption pushed through - which they can then use whenever they feel like it.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, your "evidence" is on Sdem's Trollaxor site. But let's assume it is accurate anyway. The document says "Author: Anonymous". So he isn't even claiming to have written it. Fyodor puts up all sorts of shit from other people on his web page
In which case, all Fyodor has to do to protect his reputation is to reveal who submitted the article to insecure.org - simple no?
I almost suspect that you are attempting to 'troll the trolls' here, but on the offchance that you have not seen the infamous page already, here it is. Happy now?
A pirate got busted. Big deal. Stop the presses.
Same argument innit...,/P>
Perhaps some form of Linux could become the core of a new OS designed for some of the cool hardware coming out of Japan, kind of like Apple OSX.
;-)
Imagine a Sony VAIO with its own optimised Linux-based OS? With the advantage that at least their CDs should play ok on it
For spaghetti, as for anything else, may I recommend a spork.
Even better, what about a video file named , for example, starwarsdivx.avi which actually contains a 10-minute still of Christmas Island's most infamous export accompanied by a maximum-volume 1kHz tone...?
Also in my part of the UK, a 'cracker' is a particularly attractive person of the sex to which one is attracted. EG one might say 'You know that Natalie Portman, she's a cracker'.
The nightmare that immediately jumped into my mind is that this "protection layer" could come to involve brief advertisements from our favorite corporations, prepended to the beginning of every song.
Two words:
Cool Edit.
Hello, Point here...
Handing more power to the authorities doesn't always reduce crimes against the individual (robbery, violence etc) because they're mostly concerned with protecting the system, not the individual - I live in the UK too (somewhere in the Midlands) and where I am a few years back there was an epidemic of drugs and burglaries but the only time the police took any notice was to hit a bloody PIRATE RADIO STATION - does that tell you something?
In fact it wouldn't surprise me if the police, courts etc weren't deliberately going easy on regular thugs to instill just the sort of thinking you express, leading support to the measures they want - and n.b. practically every measure intended to protect individuals has been twisted (eg the first ever prosecution under the Race Relations Act in the UK was against a black power activist who dissed a cop, and a law brought in supposedly to protect women from stalkers has in practice been mostly used against anti-corporate protesters).
The quote from Thomas Jefferson that regularly turns up here sums it up - if you're willing to trade liberty for security, you deserve and will get neither.
Eazy-N
Oh yeah? What about:
Quatermass
Dr. Who
Thunderbirds/Captain Scarlet/etc
Hitch hiker's Guide To The Galaxy
The Prisoner
...and that's just off the top of my head!
Eazy-N
Just to clarify this, it's not actually 'removing the code chip' - for reliable multi-region playback, you need a chip that contains all six region codes as often discs won't play if they don't recognise a particular region code (eg if it's an R1 disc, it will only play if it sees a specific R1 code in the player chip, likewise an R2 might only play if R2 is present) Eazy-N.
The Breitling NaviTimer has 2 of these technologies together - it's an automatic watch with a built in slide rule, cost is about $3000 tho'.
Don't give Jack 'Off' Straw ideas!!!!
>This violates 3 important acts that have are >active in Britian according to the Observer:
>1.Human Rights Act
>2.European Union Law
>3.Data Protection Act
Yes, but unless you have a few thousand pounds to spare dragging it through the courts those three acts are as much use to you as toilet roll as the British Govt is well known for using taxpayers money to spend those very same taxpayers into oblivion - particularly disturbing example:
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/encosts.htm
As for the technical hurdles, maybe true now, but give technological advancement a few years and who knows?
And finally:
>The last reason is Political Ramifications. >There are very serious human rights concerns >with something like this
Unfortunately, nothing that a few hysterical scare stories won't cure. Not to mention the ongoing case in which the HRA is being used against speed cameras - I see the headlines now, 'Crazy Euro Law Lets Speed Freaks Endanger Your Children' followed shortly by a panicky loophole that says the HRA doesn't apply 'where safety of life is concerned' - bingo, one precedent: next, a few press releases about terrorists, paedophiles etc. on the net and *BANG* said loophole is applied to RIP.
N
Not all IE installations have msn.com as default homepage. IE Administration Kit allows PC suppliers, ISPs etc. to change the default home page to theirs, among other things (like changing the spinning globe animation). Take It Eazy N.
> Not often myself, but on those occasions I do I just like to mention that wonderful success story (not) called the Soviet Union - that usually foxes them :-)
Re your point 2 - don't be too sure about the Human Rights Act and the ECHR providing a defence. There was a recent UK court ruling that speed cameras are a violation of privacy under said act - so it's only a matter of time before HMG supported by the road safety lobby get an exemption pushed through - which they can then use whenever they feel like it.
Eazy-N