Oldschool HDMI was 4.2 Gbit. The newer 2.0 spec is 18 GBit, which are almost certainly the most common now.
But you are correct (in spirit - we're talking Gbit, not GB) that the next gen, 2.1, claims to be 48Gbit, but a) they're not in wide enough use to test this argument (I don't know that any consumer gear has 2.1 yet), and b) you'd need to actually use that bandwidth (e.g. 4K/120, 8K), which again is not going to be common for some time.
It does look like HDMI 2.1 cables are thick enough to have decent shielding.
Do you know what a Community is? It's a cohesive organization made up of humans. It's not some monolithic robot where humanity goes out the window.
"He burns crosses on the weekends, but he commits clean code" is not exactly a defense I would want to hear in my own organization, especially if I were someone of color. You don't see how that makes for a toxic environment for others?
> if it is open then law enforcement would have no problems prosecuting such behavior.
What world do you live in? We can't get people to agree that sexual harassment is even a thing, or should be legally actionable; you really think "law enforcement" is going to "prosecute" that? For the record, law enforcement still asks questions on what victims did to deserve it.
As for your attempt to "flip the example", you will have tofurther define "sponsor" and "pro-life initiative"; one's an ambiguous term, the other often (not always, but often) masquerades as misogyny, thus more details. Donating money to a political figure because they identify as "pro-life" is one thing; providing funding for an effort to ban body autonomy or organizations that help women in many ways simply because that includes abortion is another.
But your question was whether any of this should give the LC standing to revoke access -- probably not, in a vacuum. But then again, holding the abstract belief that women should be forced to unwillingly carry a child (especially regardless of circumstances) is abusive, but certainly less so than what I described above, so I don't think you really made an equal argument.
Wow, that's quite the stretch. I have been witness to environments where someone's race/gender/orientation have been either the sole basis for, or an amplifier to, someone's horrible behavior towards another. I don't see it much "the other way around" in professional contexts.
I'm not bemoaning anything, for the record. However, I do think we should be encouraging and supporting those from other cultures and backgrounds to take part in our technical future. But not everyone is a robot and can just "shrug off" abusive behavior, especially when they're just starting out; I just don't see how it's a negative to be understanding of another.
So if I were a known and public Linux maintainer, go to a tech conference, and start openly sexually harassing women attendees, or berating minorities who are showing interest in technology... you're saying the Linux Community should have no ability to distance themselves from that contributor in the form of revoking write access?
Because there may be times where they may be socially associated with an organization, but not acting on "official" behalf of them. As a contrived example, if they're attending an industry conference where they're not an "appointed representative", people may still identify them as a "Linux maintainer".
I don't disagree that it's ambiguous, but with people attempting to be hyper-literal in order to defend their terrible behavior as unactionable, I don't see any way it couldn't be. They have to leave themselves room to allow a case-by-case basis in egregious circumstances.
I've been trying to remember the name of Medievia for ages! They had a pretty cool weather system.
I actually donated once to get some perks. Their site claims they don't delete players, but it thinks my username is new... it's been 15+ years since I last logged in, so I suppose I can't be too mad.
> Yes, and? You said "..then [why] not just use a Mac Pro? It's also fairly portable". I was simply addressing the shortsightedness of your statement.
Speaking of short-sighted, just because you don't have a problem with 16GB doesn't mean someone's claims are 'dubious'. I know how to use Activity Monitor. I am frequently in Swap when I have the programs open that I mentioned in my previous message. If you're not familiar with them, that's just fine, but don't insinuate that I don't know what I'm talking about just because you haven't had personal experience.
A Mac Pro is not 'portable' if you still have to lug a screen around. I like to move from the desk to the living room, patio, or completely different area altogether. Sometimes I like to do work while laying in bed. There are plenty of use-cases that people will reasonably pay to have access to.
I enjoy keeping my computer up and running for long periods of time, but I have to reboot my MBP a few times a month (because I'm stubborn and won't do it once a week) when I dig so far into swap that simply restarting VM/PhpStorm/Skype/Outlook doesn't clear it. I absolutely need 32GB in order to be properly productive.
As a less-direct response: I don't need a drone to take pictures or video of private property. Turning on the camera on my phone and pointing it at literally any level direction would cause me to take pictures or video of private property.
Drones flown over private property should be handled by reasonable trespassing laws, which generally regard firearms - especially pointed into the sky - as an absolute last resort. However, you seem to be making assumptions that any device in the 2D space of your property boundary is 'trespassing', and that's patently false. However, I will admit this is a question that still needs a definitive legal answer, as previous legal rulings have been mixed. But I can tell you that if my quad drifts into a corner of your yard at 250 feet, especially if I'm not intentionally attempting to "invade your privacy" (by stupid-people definition, not legal definition), nobody in their right mind would consider that trespassing.
The vast, overwhelming majority of people do understand that they cannot fly them where they endanger manned aircraft - that's why it's common practice to generally fly under 400 feet (unless you have specific, researched knowledge that higher altitudes are safe in your region). The tone of your post is very often echoed by people who have never actually seen these. I urge you to make friends with an owner of one of these devices; I promise your outlook will change quite a bit by spending some time understanding its actual capabilities, not to mention the joy of flight.
It was on FP for me at the time; but in any case, it genuinely wasn't meant to be a dupe complaint. I was referencing the previous story for sake of discussion/lead-in to the ending questions.
We've talked about this before. On its face, collecting information about settings changes, time of use, and duration of use are not inherently sensitive.
However, the issue (for me) is that it was later learned that these reports tie back to a username. Now, obviously a username is arguably non-PII by itself, but there are enough people putting in real information about themselves that it becomes a problem.
Is it worth a lawsuit? Or more accurately, is this an instance where popular opinion of a manufacturer's "should have known better" will override their own stated ToS/Privacy policies?
I rescinded above - apparently from a screenshot of the REST endpoint, it does incorporate the username of the person, which makes this a lot worse than if it were truly anonymous datapoints.
Nevermind, I take back what I said - the article itself didn't specifically address the PII aspect, according to this Tweet/Image, you can infer the REST endpoint does include the username.
While I again don't personally care too much if it were me, and also while I think usernames are a weak form of PII, I do understand how storing it per account can be disconcerting and definitely hope this discovery will help change the company's policies.
Right now, somewhere in this world, someone is masturbating. As you read this, someone else just increasedtheir device to vibrate a little faster. I don't think anyone can argue that I've violated anyone's privacy by stating that. That's the equivalent of what this discovery, as written, entails.
Maybe I'm not as overly-conservative (bordering on prudish, if I may say so) as you. If I bought a toilet or seat that monitored how often [the user] took a dump, really I don't care. Frankly, in that particular instance, I wouldn't even care if they knew it was my account/username that was taking said dump. Pooping is not a shameful act. So maybe that wasn't the best analogy on your part.
I would argue that study groups are MORE personally-identifiable and intrusive than this method of data collection. Sure, people are 'signing up' for it, but you know who the testers are, and they know they're being tested - possible data skew.
I'm not saying that the company shouldn't adjust how they do this (others brought up proper disclaimers, and I think an opt-out button would be good), but again, I find it extremely difficult to justify the word "caught" in this instance. If no PII is sent, I truly do not see the issue. Sex is not embarrassing.
You raise a fair point - it would have definitely behooved them to explicitly say that no PII is being transmitted. However, the researchers apparently cracked this communication, so I would expect them to have found and loudly reported such.
I don't necessarily agree with the rest of your comment, at least at this time. Tinfoil hats are just too uncomfortable for me to wear continuously. If such time it does happen, I'll proactively retract my opposition.
To be clear: Collecting personally identifiable is certainly wrong without explicit opt-in. There's no indication that this is happening. Collecting anonymous data is not bad, but I would concede that an opt-out should be made available.
Okay, so they capture completely non-personally-identifiable information... so?
They log how often the user changes vibration settings. This seems like clear product improvement data. Remove lesser-used settings and utilize the information on how frequently the settings are changed to create an auto-program that mimics that alternation. They capture the temperature. This seems like possible safety data, if nothing else.
If it activated the microphone to record the ambient "noise", you'd have a clear case of 'catching' someone sending data. Does it send the phone's device ID? I didn't see it in the summary. So I'm genuinely not seeing what's inherently wrong with wanting to understand how products are used and could improve, especially in the burgeoning sexual-health industry.
Nice context shift. I was speaking specifically about society and law shuffling off the constraints of organized religion and how those parts of the nation operate, it was not an exhaustive review of our entire government.
The 'God' of 1776 is a lot different than what you think of now. In those days, "God" was simply the name for a creationist power, whether it be the abstract power in Deism (which a number of our Founding Fathers were, to refute your claim), the meddling God of Christianity, or whatever in between. In the 20th Century, the term 'God' became explicitly synonymous with the Christian flavor (much like the word 'marriage').
The freedom of religion IS a core value, which makes these specific Cold War actions of the United States just as terrible as the Soviets.
Slashdot Mirror
Oldschool HDMI was 4.2 Gbit. The newer 2.0 spec is 18 GBit, which are almost certainly the most common now.
But you are correct (in spirit - we're talking Gbit, not GB) that the next gen, 2.1, claims to be 48Gbit, but a) they're not in wide enough use to test this argument (I don't know that any consumer gear has 2.1 yet), and b) you'd need to actually use that bandwidth (e.g. 4K/120, 8K), which again is not going to be common for some time.
It does look like HDMI 2.1 cables are thick enough to have decent shielding.
First, it is incorrect to state that "I" am doing anything. The Linux Community themselves made these guidelines, I had nothing to do with it.
With that in mind, it would seem the LC disagrees with your assessment.
Do you know what a Community is? It's a cohesive organization made up of humans. It's not some monolithic robot where humanity goes out the window.
"He burns crosses on the weekends, but he commits clean code" is not exactly a defense I would want to hear in my own organization, especially if I were someone of color. You don't see how that makes for a toxic environment for others?
> if it is open then law enforcement would have no problems prosecuting such behavior.
What world do you live in? We can't get people to agree that sexual harassment is even a thing, or should be legally actionable; you really think "law enforcement" is going to "prosecute" that? For the record, law enforcement still asks questions on what victims did to deserve it.
As for your attempt to "flip the example", you will have tofurther define "sponsor" and "pro-life initiative"; one's an ambiguous term, the other often (not always, but often) masquerades as misogyny, thus more details. Donating money to a political figure because they identify as "pro-life" is one thing; providing funding for an effort to ban body autonomy or organizations that help women in many ways simply because that includes abortion is another.
But your question was whether any of this should give the LC standing to revoke access -- probably not, in a vacuum. But then again, holding the abstract belief that women should be forced to unwillingly carry a child (especially regardless of circumstances) is abusive, but certainly less so than what I described above, so I don't think you really made an equal argument.
Wow, that's quite the stretch. I have been witness to environments where someone's race/gender/orientation have been either the sole basis for, or an amplifier to, someone's horrible behavior towards another. I don't see it much "the other way around" in professional contexts.
I'm not bemoaning anything, for the record. However, I do think we should be encouraging and supporting those from other cultures and backgrounds to take part in our technical future. But not everyone is a robot and can just "shrug off" abusive behavior, especially when they're just starting out; I just don't see how it's a negative to be understanding of another.
So if I were a known and public Linux maintainer, go to a tech conference, and start openly sexually harassing women attendees, or berating minorities who are showing interest in technology... you're saying the Linux Community should have no ability to distance themselves from that contributor in the form of revoking write access?
Are you sure that's what you want?
Because there may be times where they may be socially associated with an organization, but not acting on "official" behalf of them. As a contrived example, if they're attending an industry conference where they're not an "appointed representative", people may still identify them as a "Linux maintainer".
I don't disagree that it's ambiguous, but with people attempting to be hyper-literal in order to defend their terrible behavior as unactionable, I don't see any way it couldn't be. They have to leave themselves room to allow a case-by-case basis in egregious circumstances.
I've been trying to remember the name of Medievia for ages! They had a pretty cool weather system.
I actually donated once to get some perks. Their site claims they don't delete players, but it thinks my username is new... it's been 15+ years since I last logged in, so I suppose I can't be too mad.
With what source of money did the operators of said forums pay for hosting and moderation?
And more saliently, where are these entities now?
> Yes, and?
You said "..then [why] not just use a Mac Pro? It's also fairly portable". I was simply addressing the shortsightedness of your statement.
Speaking of short-sighted, just because you don't have a problem with 16GB doesn't mean someone's claims are 'dubious'. I know how to use Activity Monitor. I am frequently in Swap when I have the programs open that I mentioned in my previous message. If you're not familiar with them, that's just fine, but don't insinuate that I don't know what I'm talking about just because you haven't had personal experience.
A Mac Pro is not 'portable' if you still have to lug a screen around. I like to move from the desk to the living room, patio, or completely different area altogether. Sometimes I like to do work while laying in bed. There are plenty of use-cases that people will reasonably pay to have access to.
I enjoy keeping my computer up and running for long periods of time, but I have to reboot my MBP a few times a month (because I'm stubborn and won't do it once a week) when I dig so far into swap that simply restarting VM/PhpStorm/Skype/Outlook doesn't clear it. I absolutely need 32GB in order to be properly productive.
According to HiYa's Privacy Page, they do indeed pilfer your contact list.
Just because that's the only thing you would use it for doesn't mean that's what they're actually used for.
But 3/10 for the trolling effort. You can do better.
You're an idiot. Please don't breed.
As a less-direct response: I don't need a drone to take pictures or video of private property. Turning on the camera on my phone and pointing it at literally any level direction would cause me to take pictures or video of private property.
Drones flown over private property should be handled by reasonable trespassing laws, which generally regard firearms - especially pointed into the sky - as an absolute last resort. However, you seem to be making assumptions that any device in the 2D space of your property boundary is 'trespassing', and that's patently false. However, I will admit this is a question that still needs a definitive legal answer, as previous legal rulings have been mixed. But I can tell you that if my quad drifts into a corner of your yard at 250 feet, especially if I'm not intentionally attempting to "invade your privacy" (by stupid-people definition, not legal definition), nobody in their right mind would consider that trespassing.
The vast, overwhelming majority of people do understand that they cannot fly them where they endanger manned aircraft - that's why it's common practice to generally fly under 400 feet (unless you have specific, researched knowledge that higher altitudes are safe in your region). The tone of your post is very often echoed by people who have never actually seen these. I urge you to make friends with an owner of one of these devices; I promise your outlook will change quite a bit by spending some time understanding its actual capabilities, not to mention the joy of flight.
It was on FP for me at the time; but in any case, it genuinely wasn't meant to be a dupe complaint. I was referencing the previous story for sake of discussion/lead-in to the ending questions.
We've talked about this before. On its face, collecting information about settings changes, time of use, and duration of use are not inherently sensitive.
However, the issue (for me) is that it was later learned that these reports tie back to a username. Now, obviously a username is arguably non-PII by itself, but there are enough people putting in real information about themselves that it becomes a problem.
Is it worth a lawsuit? Or more accurately, is this an instance where popular opinion of a manufacturer's "should have known better" will override their own stated ToS/Privacy policies?
I rescinded above - apparently from a screenshot of the REST endpoint, it does incorporate the username of the person, which makes this a lot worse than if it were truly anonymous datapoints.
Nevermind, I take back what I said - the article itself didn't specifically address the PII aspect, according to this Tweet/Image, you can infer the REST endpoint does include the username.
While I again don't personally care too much if it were me, and also while I think usernames are a weak form of PII, I do understand how storing it per account can be disconcerting and definitely hope this discovery will help change the company's policies.
Right now, somewhere in this world, someone is masturbating. As you read this, someone else just increasedtheir device to vibrate a little faster.
I don't think anyone can argue that I've violated anyone's privacy by stating that. That's the equivalent of what this discovery, as written, entails.
Maybe I'm not as overly-conservative (bordering on prudish, if I may say so) as you. If I bought a toilet or seat that monitored how often [the user] took a dump, really I don't care. Frankly, in that particular instance, I wouldn't even care if they knew it was my account/username that was taking said dump. Pooping is not a shameful act. So maybe that wasn't the best analogy on your part.
I would argue that study groups are MORE personally-identifiable and intrusive than this method of data collection. Sure, people are 'signing up' for it, but you know who the testers are, and they know they're being tested - possible data skew.
I'm not saying that the company shouldn't adjust how they do this (others brought up proper disclaimers, and I think an opt-out button would be good), but again, I find it extremely difficult to justify the word "caught" in this instance. If no PII is sent, I truly do not see the issue. Sex is not embarrassing.
You raise a fair point - it would have definitely behooved them to explicitly say that no PII is being transmitted. However, the researchers apparently cracked this communication, so I would expect them to have found and loudly reported such.
I don't necessarily agree with the rest of your comment, at least at this time. Tinfoil hats are just too uncomfortable for me to wear continuously. If such time it does happen, I'll proactively retract my opposition.
To be clear:
Collecting personally identifiable is certainly wrong without explicit opt-in. There's no indication that this is happening.
Collecting anonymous data is not bad, but I would concede that an opt-out should be made available.
Right now, somewhere in this world, someone is masturbating. There's no way in hell anyone could argue that I've just violated their privacy.
So again, if this is not transmitting any personally identifiable information, there's no betrayal of trust.
Okay, so they capture completely non-personally-identifiable information... so?
They log how often the user changes vibration settings. This seems like clear product improvement data. Remove lesser-used settings and utilize the information on how frequently the settings are changed to create an auto-program that mimics that alternation.
They capture the temperature. This seems like possible safety data, if nothing else.
If it activated the microphone to record the ambient "noise", you'd have a clear case of 'catching' someone sending data. Does it send the phone's device ID? I didn't see it in the summary. So I'm genuinely not seeing what's inherently wrong with wanting to understand how products are used and could improve, especially in the burgeoning sexual-health industry.
Just as a point of clarification, "*AA asshats" are NOT content creators. They are leeches.
Nice context shift. I was speaking specifically about society and law shuffling off the constraints of organized religion and how those parts of the nation operate, it was not an exhaustive review of our entire government.
After you.
The 'God' of 1776 is a lot different than what you think of now. In those days, "God" was simply the name for a creationist power, whether it be the abstract power in Deism (which a number of our Founding Fathers were, to refute your claim), the meddling God of Christianity, or whatever in between. In the 20th Century, the term 'God' became explicitly synonymous with the Christian flavor (much like the word 'marriage').
The freedom of religion IS a core value, which makes these specific Cold War actions of the United States just as terrible as the Soviets.