That's an interesting take. Nothing would surprise me, including cluelessness and/or outright lying on the part of the speakers. I also note the absence of a follow-up question by the reporter to the D-Trust guy, but I guess he had a deadline. The article also lacks an estimate of the cost to replace all those cards, and who will be paying for the mistake. I guess it's probably too early in the shit flinging to know for sure who it's going to stick to.
The summary even states that Gematik insisted on a back-up less operation, and then provides a quote explicitly stating that they did no such thing!
Gematik commissioned D-Trust to provide the root CA as a service. D-Trust managing director Matthias Merx stated "Gematik decided to 'do without a back-up'. As a service provider, we have to accept that."
From the article and summary:
"Gematik spokesman Daniel Poeschkens poured scorn on the statement that Gematik had insisted on the service provider carrying out a test without backing up the root CA private keys. "We did not decide against a back-up service..."
Slashdot: doing for editorial accuracy what Fox does for editorial neutrality.
Indeed. Two sides claiming different things. Must be Slashdot's fault.
There is a thing called fair use. In the Netherlands for example we pay about 24 eurocents on every empty cd or dvd we buy. In return it is legal to download music and movies for personal uses
That's not "fair use," if you have to pay a tax to do it. Fair use is by definition non-infringing use of copyrighted material. As such, copyright holders should receive no compensation for it.
We have a similar tax on blank media here in Canada, and people use a similar line of media industry propaganda to justify it, but the notion is just plain wrong. Fair use is non-infringing activity, and citizens should fight to ensure the concept is not eroded by groups who would like to see it done away with.
The problem with your vision is that Stallman, like Trotsky and other orthodox Marxists is exclusionary
Actually, I would consider Stallman an "inclusionary." He has fought hardest and loudest to ensure that users - who normally have no say whatsoever in how the software they use works, will have the choice to use "something else" if that's what they want. And the beauty of it is, you are free to choose to use Microsoft's offering instead.
It's kind of the same thing as net neutrality. It's all about having choices. And that scares some people who's world view won't allow them to see a market place of ideas in terms of anything but "winner takes it all."
I'm sorry you feel so oppressed by the bearded one, but don't worry. Last time I checked there was plenty of opportunity for you to stay inside the silo and continue to be locked in by vendors like Microsoft. I honestly don't think that's going to change any time soon.
I'm just glad that my choice isn't limited to you narrow vision.
One where there is room for Zuckerberg version, Google's, Microsofts and Richard Stallmans. And anyone else who wants to put something up for consideration.
As long as we have network neutrality, all of these visionaries are free to do as they please.
This "one version will overtake all the rest" mentality is a meat-space concept and has no place on the Internet.
Trademarks are certainly not protected by fair use. Fair use is an affirmative defense in copyright infringement cases, not trademark infringement cases
This is criticism, not parody, but certainly suggests the concept of "fair use" can be applied to trademarks, as well as copyright.
The question is... it it just telling you there's an update, or is it specifically warning you before you click to install it "WARNING: INSTALLING THIS WILL DISABLE YOUR ABILITY TO USE NON-PANASONIC BATTERIES"
When I worked for a big box electronics retailer back in the mid 90s you better believe us clueless sales people had to know stuff like that. They would even send people from head office to "shop" us and make sure we knew our marketing plan and the "company tract," and if we didn't know it well enough we got our numbers pulled and spent the next two weeks shadowing another sales person and working for base instead of making money off of selling stuff.
If you get a "clueless BB sales person" who doesn't know the answer to questions like this, tell them thank you and leave the store. There is also this great thing called the Internet, where you can research all this stuff before plunking down your hard-earned cash. This is a great place to start.
The previous firmware versions (before the battery "update") that contained other necessary fixes, are no longer available on the Panasonic site.
For which camera? The notice lists several models, and as far as I can tell all this update does is add the feature that checks for a Panasonic battery. So even if you hadn't run the other "needed" updates, running this update isn't going to fix those things.
This page lists firmware updates for Lumix cameras going back to October 2008. I think if you dig a bit deeper you'll find the previous updates for your camera intact. Either that or this update does more than just check the battery.
I don't know. I don't own a Panasonic camera, so I'm not really familiar with the layout of their support website.
I never thought to ask when buying a camera if it "allows" third party batteries. It is (was) the norm that if you can swap batteries, you'll be able to find third party versions of them.
Is it "the norm?" My Nikon uses a battery pack, rather than standard AA batteries. I don't know whether or not there are third party battery packs available for it, but I do know I can't just buy a couple of Duracels and pop them in.
Would you buy a car without knowing that it runs on Diesel? If you had a peanut allergy, wouldn't you make sure the food you buy doesn't contain nuts? Not trying to be sarcastic, but buyer beware and all that.
Again, if Panasonic had just snuck this in with an update that fixes other problems I could understand the hand wringing over this, but they didn't. They've been upfront about what they're doing and why, and people have the choice to not run it.
it is a problem because they're stifling my ability to choose what battery to use and positioning themselves as monopolist
No they're not. They are saying "Some of these aftermarket batteries are not equipped with internal protective devices to guard against overcharging, internal heating and short circuit. If these aftermarket battery packs were used, it could lead to an accident causing damage to your camera or personal injury." So they created a firmware update that would check for the presence of a Panasonic battery and refuse to run if one isn't found. Then they gave you a choice as to whether or not you want to run it.
I would assume that if you choose to not run the update, and you camera explodes or something, they would use the availability of this firmware update as a defense in any lawsuits that result.
Nobody is forcing you to run this update; nobody is stifling your choice; nobody is dictating what batteries you can use. You can choose to not run this update on your current camera, and you can choose to not buy Panasonic cameras in the future if they only support Panasonic batteries.
I'm sure all future firmware will include this. And I'm sure all new cameras will include this without the ability to go back.
You may be right, but we won't know that until Panasonic releases future firmware updates. Their site does not say anything about future updates.
It's not like they tried to hide what they were doing. They put a warning on the download page (even put it in red letters) telling people exactly what this update does and their reason for doing it. Nobody has to run this update, or future updates for that matter.
As for future cameras only supporting Panasonic batteries, that's something you ask at the time of purchase. What kind of batteries does it take? Can I use rechargeables? Can I use aftermarket batteries? If you're not asking basic questions like that, chances are there are going to be a lot of other things about the camera you won't like when you get it home and start using it.
Exactly. If the summary is correct, and the update does just that and warns the user what it does, I don't have a problem. As long as subsequent firmware updates can be applied without applying this one, I'm fine with it.
Some such people find the tariff reasonable in this context and have built large libraries of music on CD-Rs... for a lot less than would have to be paid if purchasing the pre-recorded discs at retail.
The fact that you feel justified in amassing a large library of contraband because you paid a 21 cent tax on the blank media you use to store your ill-gotten goods is irrelevant. That is not the purpose of the levy. Its actual purpose is to compensate copyright holders for fair dealing by citizens who purchased the music they are copying.
In 2004 the Canadian Recording Industry Association sued five ISPs, seeking the names of 29 individuals they claimed were guilty of file sharing. Note, this was seven years after the Private Copying Levy was introduced in the 1997 Canadian Copyright Act. The fact that the CRIA lost that case is the reason you are able to download music to your heart's content, not the levy.
Copyright holders should not be compensated for Canadians' fair dealing, and you should pay for your damn music collection.
Anyone that has a non-mp3 enabled cd player in their car would disagree
I've found mixed results playing home-made CDs as well as CD-Rs of mp3 files, but that is a valid point. When I purchased a vehicle earlier this year, I ensured the stereo had an 1/8" mini jack so I wouldn't have to carry around little plastic discs.
The justification I always hear for the tax is based on the assumption that people are using blank CD-Rs to permanently store music they have downloaded without paying for, and I have a hard time accepting that a significant number of blanks sold are used for that purpose.
It's becoming less of an issue for me, as I rarely use that medium any more. My concern is the same justification will be used to impose a similar tax on hard drives, SD cards and even music players themselves in the future.
The key point is refuting this idea that there should be strings attached to fair dealing. Compensating copyright holders for revenue lost to people downloading songs without paying for them is a completely separate issue, and worthy of discussion. Compensating copyright holders for activities that fall under fair dealing makes as much sense as compensating McDonald's because I had my Big Mac "to go" instead of eating it in their restaurant.
The "tax" (actually a tariff) on blank audio media is there to keep the CRIA from suing anyone that downloads music. We have "fair use" because they lobbied for that tariff, which does straight to them.
Of course, there should *not* be a specific tax that "entitles" Canadians to "fair use," or "fair dealing" as it is called in Canada. The whole point of fair dealing is that it is a reasonable exception to the unnatural monopoly granted to copyright holders. There should be no compensation to copyright holders because I choose to listen to the CD I purchased on my mp3 player while I run. I am not distributing their CD, just changing the device I am listening to it on.
The other reason I think they should "axe the tax" is that I simply can not accept that people are actually downloading music (probably in mp3 format), converting them to wav files (or whatever) then burning them to CDs. In fact, I take it back, anyone actually doing that deserves to be fined 21 cents per CD for having too much time on their hands.
Reason #937 why most keyboard have far more fecal coliforms on their surface than the average toilet seat.
Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot
on
Kodak Kills Kodachrome
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, I read your comment too quickly and didn't notice you were actually interested in a point & shoot, not a DSLR. Still, you might want to look at it if she's really interested in photography, especially if shooting in RAW is important to you.
Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot
on
Kodak Kills Kodachrome
·
· Score: 1
Can anyone recommend a digital point and shoot with RAW support for about $200-300?
I don't know what they're retailing for where you live, but the Nikon D40 is a great entry-level DSLR. It's small and lightweight, which might appeal to your girlfriend, it comes with a decent 18-50 mm kit lens and shoots RAW, although I generally set mine to shoot Fine quality jpeg.
I would also suggest checking out Ken Rockwell's site. He has great reviews and how-to articles that may be helpful before and after your purchase. I'm not connected to his site in any way, but consult it frequently.
Can you imagine going to a web site from a corporate locked down machine and attempting to install some untrusted codec? Sure, that will fly. Like BAG said, Flash works now and is damn near ubiquitous.
So your corporate locked-down machine came with Flash installed on it? Or does someone with an admin password come and install or update it for you as required and permitted by your company's acceptable use policy? If the latter, why not install the Ogg Theora/Vorbis codec mentioned above instead?
Slashdot Mirror
Mod lives in parents' basement
That's an interesting take. Nothing would surprise me, including cluelessness and/or outright lying on the part of the speakers. I also note the absence of a follow-up question by the reporter to the D-Trust guy, but I guess he had a deadline. The article also lacks an estimate of the cost to replace all those cards, and who will be paying for the mistake. I guess it's probably too early in the shit flinging to know for sure who it's going to stick to.
Gematik commissioned D-Trust to provide the root CA as a service. D-Trust managing director Matthias Merx stated "Gematik decided to 'do without a back-up'. As a service provider, we have to accept that."
From the article and summary:
"Gematik spokesman Daniel Poeschkens poured scorn on the statement that Gematik had insisted on the service provider carrying out a test without backing up the root CA private keys. "We did not decide against a back-up service ..."
Indeed. Two sides claiming different things. Must be Slashdot's fault.
That's not "fair use," if you have to pay a tax to do it. Fair use is by definition non-infringing use of copyrighted material. As such, copyright holders should receive no compensation for it.
We have a similar tax on blank media here in Canada, and people use a similar line of media industry propaganda to justify it, but the notion is just plain wrong. Fair use is non-infringing activity, and citizens should fight to ensure the concept is not eroded by groups who would like to see it done away with.
The lead singer from Herman's Hermits.
I always thought particles would be much more interesting if they made them in doubly.
Actually, I would consider Stallman an "inclusionary." He has fought hardest and loudest to ensure that users - who normally have no say whatsoever in how the software they use works, will have the choice to use "something else" if that's what they want. And the beauty of it is, you are free to choose to use Microsoft's offering instead.
It's kind of the same thing as net neutrality. It's all about having choices. And that scares some people who's world view won't allow them to see a market place of ideas in terms of anything but "winner takes it all."
I'm sorry you feel so oppressed by the bearded one, but don't worry. Last time I checked there was plenty of opportunity for you to stay inside the silo and continue to be locked in by vendors like Microsoft. I honestly don't think that's going to change any time soon.
I'm just glad that my choice isn't limited to you narrow vision.
My "vision" for the future of the Internet:
One where there is room for Zuckerberg version, Google's, Microsofts and Richard Stallmans. And anyone else who wants to put something up for consideration.
As long as we have network neutrality, all of these visionaries are free to do as they please.
This "one version will overtake all the rest" mentality is a meat-space concept and has no place on the Internet.
This is criticism, not parody, but certainly suggests the concept of "fair use" can be applied to trademarks, as well as copyright.
That would explain the rings.
Sheep
Pigs
Dogs
Yes, I think I've heard this somewhere before.
Bzzt!
When I worked for a big box electronics retailer back in the mid 90s you better believe us clueless sales people had to know stuff like that. They would even send people from head office to "shop" us and make sure we knew our marketing plan and the "company tract," and if we didn't know it well enough we got our numbers pulled and spent the next two weeks shadowing another sales person and working for base instead of making money off of selling stuff.
If you get a "clueless BB sales person" who doesn't know the answer to questions like this, tell them thank you and leave the store. There is also this great thing called the Internet, where you can research all this stuff before plunking down your hard-earned cash. This is a great place to start.
For which camera? The notice lists several models, and as far as I can tell all this update does is add the feature that checks for a Panasonic battery. So even if you hadn't run the other "needed" updates, running this update isn't going to fix those things.
This page lists firmware updates for Lumix cameras going back to October 2008. I think if you dig a bit deeper you'll find the previous updates for your camera intact. Either that or this update does more than just check the battery.
I don't know. I don't own a Panasonic camera, so I'm not really familiar with the layout of their support website.
Is it "the norm?" My Nikon uses a battery pack, rather than standard AA batteries. I don't know whether or not there are third party battery packs available for it, but I do know I can't just buy a couple of Duracels and pop them in.
Would you buy a car without knowing that it runs on Diesel? If you had a peanut allergy, wouldn't you make sure the food you buy doesn't contain nuts? Not trying to be sarcastic, but buyer beware and all that.
Again, if Panasonic had just snuck this in with an update that fixes other problems I could understand the hand wringing over this, but they didn't. They've been upfront about what they're doing and why, and people have the choice to not run it.
No they're not. They are saying "Some of these aftermarket batteries are not equipped with internal protective devices to guard against overcharging, internal heating and short circuit. If these aftermarket battery packs were used, it could lead to an accident causing damage to your camera or personal injury." So they created a firmware update that would check for the presence of a Panasonic battery and refuse to run if one isn't found. Then they gave you a choice as to whether or not you want to run it.
I would assume that if you choose to not run the update, and you camera explodes or something, they would use the availability of this firmware update as a defense in any lawsuits that result.
Nobody is forcing you to run this update; nobody is stifling your choice; nobody is dictating what batteries you can use. You can choose to not run this update on your current camera, and you can choose to not buy Panasonic cameras in the future if they only support Panasonic batteries.
You may be right, but we won't know that until Panasonic releases future firmware updates. Their site does not say anything about future updates.
It's not like they tried to hide what they were doing. They put a warning on the download page (even put it in red letters) telling people exactly what this update does and their reason for doing it. Nobody has to run this update, or future updates for that matter.
As for future cameras only supporting Panasonic batteries, that's something you ask at the time of purchase. What kind of batteries does it take? Can I use rechargeables? Can I use aftermarket batteries? If you're not asking basic questions like that, chances are there are going to be a lot of other things about the camera you won't like when you get it home and start using it.
Exactly. If the summary is correct, and the update does just that and warns the user what it does, I don't have a problem. As long as subsequent firmware updates can be applied without applying this one, I'm fine with it.
The fact that you feel justified in amassing a large library of contraband because you paid a 21 cent tax on the blank media you use to store your ill-gotten goods is irrelevant. That is not the purpose of the levy. Its actual purpose is to compensate copyright holders for fair dealing by citizens who purchased the music they are copying.
In 2004 the Canadian Recording Industry Association sued five ISPs, seeking the names of 29 individuals they claimed were guilty of file sharing. Note, this was seven years after the Private Copying Levy was introduced in the 1997 Canadian Copyright Act. The fact that the CRIA lost that case is the reason you are able to download music to your heart's content, not the levy.
Copyright holders should not be compensated for Canadians' fair dealing, and you should pay for your damn music collection.
I've found mixed results playing home-made CDs as well as CD-Rs of mp3 files, but that is a valid point. When I purchased a vehicle earlier this year, I ensured the stereo had an 1/8" mini jack so I wouldn't have to carry around little plastic discs.
The justification I always hear for the tax is based on the assumption that people are using blank CD-Rs to permanently store music they have downloaded without paying for, and I have a hard time accepting that a significant number of blanks sold are used for that purpose.
It's becoming less of an issue for me, as I rarely use that medium any more. My concern is the same justification will be used to impose a similar tax on hard drives, SD cards and even music players themselves in the future.
The key point is refuting this idea that there should be strings attached to fair dealing. Compensating copyright holders for revenue lost to people downloading songs without paying for them is a completely separate issue, and worthy of discussion. Compensating copyright holders for activities that fall under fair dealing makes as much sense as compensating McDonald's because I had my Big Mac "to go" instead of eating it in their restaurant.
Of course, there should *not* be a specific tax that "entitles" Canadians to "fair use," or "fair dealing" as it is called in Canada. The whole point of fair dealing is that it is a reasonable exception to the unnatural monopoly granted to copyright holders. There should be no compensation to copyright holders because I choose to listen to the CD I purchased on my mp3 player while I run. I am not distributing their CD, just changing the device I am listening to it on.
The other reason I think they should "axe the tax" is that I simply can not accept that people are actually downloading music (probably in mp3 format), converting them to wav files (or whatever) then burning them to CDs. In fact, I take it back, anyone actually doing that deserves to be fined 21 cents per CD for having too much time on their hands.
Reason #937 why most keyboard have far more fecal coliforms on their surface than the average toilet seat.
Sorry, I read your comment too quickly and didn't notice you were actually interested in a point & shoot, not a DSLR. Still, you might want to look at it if she's really interested in photography, especially if shooting in RAW is important to you.
I don't know what they're retailing for where you live, but the Nikon D40 is a great entry-level DSLR. It's small and lightweight, which might appeal to your girlfriend, it comes with a decent 18-50 mm kit lens and shoots RAW, although I generally set mine to shoot Fine quality jpeg.
I would also suggest checking out Ken Rockwell's site. He has great reviews and how-to articles that may be helpful before and after your purchase. I'm not connected to his site in any way, but consult it frequently.
But Mama don't take my Velvia away!
So your corporate locked-down machine came with Flash installed on it? Or does someone with an admin password come and install or update it for you as required and permitted by your company's acceptable use policy? If the latter, why not install the Ogg Theora/Vorbis codec mentioned above instead?