You seem to misunderstand a basic fact: No one 'owns' the Internet. Not the ISPs, not the individual websites, not Google, not Facebook, not Amazon, not even the backbone providers that provide the highest speeds and highest bandwidth that makes everything routable to everywhere else without it being slowed down to Pony Express speeds; it's already decentralized in the technological sense of the word. The real problem is that humans tend towards things being 'centralized'. All you have to do is offer a popular product or service that no one else quite has the same kind of, and people will make it centralized.
I think they're using the wrong word here; 'decentralized' is not accurate. The word we need to be discussing is 'monopoly'. A few ISPs have a de-facto monopoly on public access to the Internet. Facebook has a de-factor monopoly on (so-called) 'social media'. Google has a de-facto monopoly on Internet searches. Amazon has a de-facto monopoly on Internet retail commerce.
Now, the problem with these de-facto monopolies is this: they are popular with people which is why they're de-facto monopolies. You'd have to make them un-popular to change that. Good luck trying to accomplish that. One way is to offer and alternative they like better. But now you're part of the problem: you have become the de-facto monopoly.
I think the only way to win this game is to not play.
You are not alone, far from it.
Since it's highly unlikely that they'll have (or would tell you of) a way to turn that off completely: If you have some background in electronics, you should be able to poke around and find the relevant antenna(s) that would be receiving the updates. Disconnect the antenna and connect it to a dummy load instead (most likely 50 ohm). Problem solved.
There's a reason they don't do that anymore: they're tired of being spammed into oblivion by spambots just because they have an accessible email address.
LOL no, it's AV on a machine provided by the major microprocessor manufacturer I work for, numbskull, and the company I was downloading from acknowledged they'd been breached.
What I meant was: I've done live sound reinforcement, worked with a producer, and have a fair understanding of things, enough so that I don't have to think about it if I'm doing it, but I have to articulate it in words I have to think about it.
Yes, it's a serious question. Regardless of Facebooks record of intentionally snooping, regardless of it being well-known that Facebook regards it's users as a 'product' to be exploited, why is it going to the extra step of essentially doing background checks on it's users to make connections to people that don't even use Facebook? To be as creepy as possible? To invade the privacy of people who don't use and don't want to use Facebook? Facebook is CANCER and needs to be EXCISED, plain and simple. They've crossed enough lines already, this is just one line too many, I think. I do not use Facebook because it was clear it does not give a shit about my desire for privacy and now they're going to reach out into the real world and invade my privacy on purpose? Hell, no, fuck them sideways with a rusty chainsaw. Enough is enough.
I had to think about it for a minute, but sliders are better for things that need to be accessed more often (channel levels, for instance) and knobs for things less often adjusted (channel EQ, i.e. low/mid/high, FX return levels, per-channel monitor levels, etc).
Sure. But if you're implying that Facebook is automatically digging into census records (or any other public records) then the question burning in my mind is why the hell is Facebook digging into public records in the first place???
If it's an EQ, it should have sliders for each frequency. But if it's a mixer the low/mid/high EQ should be knobs.
L/R balance per channel is better as a knob. Fader should be a slider.
Channel level can be a knob but it's better as a slider.
FX returns are usually knobs and would feel awkward as sliders.
Mains levels can be knobs but they're also better as sliders. ..and so on.
This. A monitor is probably going to have better quality than a regular TV anyway. Get a DVR (like TiVo) for the signal source. Get a monitor with speakers, or no speakers and a home theatre receiver for multi-channel sound.
Or, as others are suggesting, if you get stuck with a so-called 'smart TV', just never allow it to connect to the Internet.
Do you really expect audio producers to have to learn a whole new interface that has nothing to do with the physical equipment it's digitally emulating? That makes no sense. If you sit someone down who has produced audio on professional (physical) equipment, and they have a choice between one that has familiar controls in a familiar arrangement, and one that has some totally different interface (for arguments sake, let's say it's all number entry boxes and drop-down menus, like it's MS Office or something) that doesn't have the 'feel' of what they're used to, which do you think they'll pick? TFA sounds like it was written by someone who has never used real audio equipment in his life.
I SAID: "SO MANY criminal organizations, not MOST. Get it right.
cash is far better for crime and you're advocating it.
LOL I'm not 'advocating' anything other than so-called 'cryptocurrency' is stupid, has been from the beginning, and is now sullied by being used by criminals and terrorists. Go right ahead and continue to be guilty-by-assosication though. Enjoy knowing the FBI has a file on you and is watching your activities for signs of criminality.
Compare riding horses to riding dirt bikes instead.
No, I won't, because a motorcycle of any kind is about as 'manual' as you can get, and in fact requires more skill, more education, and more experience to operate safely than an average automobile does (I have been a rider for over 30 years, over 500,000 miles I can account for, and I have all my original bodyparts intact and fully functional, so I think I can comment on that). A horse on the other hand is 'semi autonomous' for purposes of this conversation, which is specifically why I used them as an example.
'Partially autonomous' means there are controls and you're doing most of the driving. So long as I can turn the automated system completely OFF so it doesn't interfere with me, that's fine (even if I have to pull a fuse somewhere to accomplish it); in fact it would be a deal-breaker requirement that I be able to completely turn it off. Also I wouldn't pay a single penny extra for any vehicle with these capabilities.
I do not believe that it will ever 'improve' enough for people to just strap themselves into a seat and hope they don't get killed by a runaway malfunctioning machine. It's basic human nature and it's not going to change anytime in the next 10,000 years. Control over one's own body is one of the things basic to being Human.
I got bad news for you, AC: YOU ARE VIOLENTLY STUPID AND UNINFORMED. Otherwise legit software and websites can be compromised into being malware. Even I once went to download drivers for a piece of hardware from the manufacturers own website and antivirus flagged the download as containing a trojan; or are you going to say that a well-known manufacturer of computer hardware was complicit? Antivirus/antimalware is like carrying a parachute with you on a small airplane; you're not planning on jumping out and letting the plane crash, but if things go terribly wrong it's good to know you're not going to DIE in a plane crash. Also, you're a smug bastard who needs his shit slapped. I'll bet if we pulled the HDD's out of your computers and scanned them, they'd probably be LOUSY with malware you aren't even aware of because you have no antivirus/antimalware to catch it.
if you install Kaspersky you are a sucker, like Moscow Donald's supporters
The correct term is 'useful idiot', get it right next time.
IN ALL SERIOUSNESS: I agree with TFA; if there is actual, independently verifiable PROOF that it's compromised by design, then the Feds should release that information. Alternately there are plenty of 'IT security researchers', and 'white hats' and plain old 'hackers' in this country (U.S.) that are more than capable of verifying whether it's spyware or not, with or without government help; where the hell are they with their reports on this?
This is a prime example of what I'm talking about when I say so-called 'self driving cars' are being rushed to market.
NONE of them are really ready and won't be for quite some time -- if ever.
Meanwhile people really don't want them anyway.
If it's so easily traced then why are so many criminal organizations using it? Oh and by the way I highly suspect that for every dumb criminal using cryptocurrency there are at least 10 who aren't dumb and aren't getting caught. You're not going to change my mind: it's perfectly suited for criminals.
A horse is smarter than so-called 'autonomous cars' in significant ways, and a properly trained horse, with a properly trained rider, act as a team; the rider and the horse have ways of communicating with each other, and the rider always has controls (reins, ankles, voice, etc). Not at all the same thing. I'd trust a horse before I'd trust a so-called 'self driving car' with no steering wheel/brake/accelerator pedal/etc. for me to use to control it.
People are starting to realize what the real implications of this are, and they're having the perfectly reasonable, rational, and logical reaction to it: You're either in control of the vehicle that your safety and life depends on, or you are NOT, and if you're not in control, you can't cope with that -- and when you can't reason with, or even communicate in a meaningful way (i.e., talk to/have a conversation with) the machine that your life depends on? Then that's a dealbreaker. I'm sure this technology will be very useful to public safety in the future -- as a sophisticated 'cruise control' feature, and as a fail-safe collision-avoidance system, and perhaps maybe preventing you from going off the road if you fall asleep at the wheel or are otherwise incapacitated suddenly. But people WANT to drive themselves, even if they say they don't sometimes, because we need to be in control of the tool (vehicle), not the other way around. Human nature. So you can forget 'Level 5' autonomous vehicles, no one will accept them in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. Great minds do think alike. :-)
You seem to misunderstand a basic fact: No one 'owns' the Internet. Not the ISPs, not the individual websites, not Google, not Facebook, not Amazon, not even the backbone providers that provide the highest speeds and highest bandwidth that makes everything routable to everywhere else without it being slowed down to Pony Express speeds; it's already decentralized in the technological sense of the word. The real problem is that humans tend towards things being 'centralized'. All you have to do is offer a popular product or service that no one else quite has the same kind of, and people will make it centralized.
I think they're using the wrong word here; 'decentralized' is not accurate. The word we need to be discussing is 'monopoly'. A few ISPs have a de-facto monopoly on public access to the Internet. Facebook has a de-factor monopoly on (so-called) 'social media'. Google has a de-facto monopoly on Internet searches. Amazon has a de-facto monopoly on Internet retail commerce.
Now, the problem with these de-facto monopolies is this: they are popular with people which is why they're de-facto monopolies. You'd have to make them un-popular to change that. Good luck trying to accomplish that. One way is to offer and alternative they like better. But now you're part of the problem: you have become the de-facto monopoly.
I think the only way to win this game is to not play.
You are not alone, far from it.
Since it's highly unlikely that they'll have (or would tell you of) a way to turn that off completely: If you have some background in electronics, you should be able to poke around and find the relevant antenna(s) that would be receiving the updates. Disconnect the antenna and connect it to a dummy load instead (most likely 50 ohm). Problem solved.
There's a reason they don't do that anymore: they're tired of being spammed into oblivion by spambots just because they have an accessible email address.
See above: https://slashdot.org/comments....
LOL no, it's AV on a machine provided by the major microprocessor manufacturer I work for, numbskull, and the company I was downloading from acknowledged they'd been breached.
What I meant was: I've done live sound reinforcement, worked with a producer, and have a fair understanding of things, enough so that I don't have to think about it if I'm doing it, but I have to articulate it in words I have to think about it.
Plain and simple. People who are not users of Facebook should not be dragged into Facebook just because Facebook wants to. Screw them.
Yes, it's a serious question. Regardless of Facebooks record of intentionally snooping, regardless of it being well-known that Facebook regards it's users as a 'product' to be exploited, why is it going to the extra step of essentially doing background checks on it's users to make connections to people that don't even use Facebook? To be as creepy as possible? To invade the privacy of people who don't use and don't want to use Facebook? Facebook is CANCER and needs to be EXCISED, plain and simple. They've crossed enough lines already, this is just one line too many, I think. I do not use Facebook because it was clear it does not give a shit about my desire for privacy and now they're going to reach out into the real world and invade my privacy on purpose? Hell, no, fuck them sideways with a rusty chainsaw. Enough is enough.
I had to think about it for a minute, but sliders are better for things that need to be accessed more often (channel levels, for instance) and knobs for things less often adjusted (channel EQ, i.e. low/mid/high, FX return levels, per-channel monitor levels, etc).
Sure. But if you're implying that Facebook is automatically digging into census records (or any other public records) then the question burning in my mind is why the hell is Facebook digging into public records in the first place???
If it's an EQ, it should have sliders for each frequency. But if it's a mixer the low/mid/high EQ should be knobs.
..and so on.
L/R balance per channel is better as a knob. Fader should be a slider.
Channel level can be a knob but it's better as a slider.
FX returns are usually knobs and would feel awkward as sliders.
Mains levels can be knobs but they're also better as sliders.
This. A monitor is probably going to have better quality than a regular TV anyway. Get a DVR (like TiVo) for the signal source. Get a monitor with speakers, or no speakers and a home theatre receiver for multi-channel sound.
Or, as others are suggesting, if you get stuck with a so-called 'smart TV', just never allow it to connect to the Internet.
Do you really expect audio producers to have to learn a whole new interface that has nothing to do with the physical equipment it's digitally emulating? That makes no sense. If you sit someone down who has produced audio on professional (physical) equipment, and they have a choice between one that has familiar controls in a familiar arrangement, and one that has some totally different interface (for arguments sake, let's say it's all number entry boxes and drop-down menus, like it's MS Office or something) that doesn't have the 'feel' of what they're used to, which do you think they'll pick? TFA sounds like it was written by someone who has never used real audio equipment in his life.
Most criminal organisations use cash.
I SAID: "SO MANY criminal organizations, not MOST. Get it right.
cash is far better for crime and you're advocating it.
LOL I'm not 'advocating' anything other than so-called 'cryptocurrency' is stupid, has been from the beginning, and is now sullied by being used by criminals and terrorists. Go right ahead and continue to be guilty-by-assosication though. Enjoy knowing the FBI has a file on you and is watching your activities for signs of criminality.
Compare riding horses to riding dirt bikes instead.
No, I won't, because a motorcycle of any kind is about as 'manual' as you can get, and in fact requires more skill, more education, and more experience to operate safely than an average automobile does (I have been a rider for over 30 years, over 500,000 miles I can account for, and I have all my original bodyparts intact and fully functional, so I think I can comment on that). A horse on the other hand is 'semi autonomous' for purposes of this conversation, which is specifically why I used them as an example.
'Partially autonomous' means there are controls and you're doing most of the driving. So long as I can turn the automated system completely OFF so it doesn't interfere with me, that's fine (even if I have to pull a fuse somewhere to accomplish it); in fact it would be a deal-breaker requirement that I be able to completely turn it off. Also I wouldn't pay a single penny extra for any vehicle with these capabilities.
I do not believe that it will ever 'improve' enough for people to just strap themselves into a seat and hope they don't get killed by a runaway malfunctioning machine. It's basic human nature and it's not going to change anytime in the next 10,000 years. Control over one's own body is one of the things basic to being Human.
I got bad news for you, AC: YOU ARE VIOLENTLY STUPID AND UNINFORMED. Otherwise legit software and websites can be compromised into being malware. Even I once went to download drivers for a piece of hardware from the manufacturers own website and antivirus flagged the download as containing a trojan; or are you going to say that a well-known manufacturer of computer hardware was complicit? Antivirus/antimalware is like carrying a parachute with you on a small airplane; you're not planning on jumping out and letting the plane crash, but if things go terribly wrong it's good to know you're not going to DIE in a plane crash. Also, you're a smug bastard who needs his shit slapped. I'll bet if we pulled the HDD's out of your computers and scanned them, they'd probably be LOUSY with malware you aren't even aware of because you have no antivirus/antimalware to catch it.
if you install Kaspersky you are a sucker, like Moscow Donald's supporters
The correct term is 'useful idiot', get it right next time.
IN ALL SERIOUSNESS: I agree with TFA; if there is actual, independently verifiable PROOF that it's compromised by design, then the Feds should release that information. Alternately there are plenty of 'IT security researchers', and 'white hats' and plain old 'hackers' in this country (U.S.) that are more than capable of verifying whether it's spyware or not, with or without government help; where the hell are they with their reports on this?
This is a prime example of what I'm talking about when I say so-called 'self driving cars' are being rushed to market.
NONE of them are really ready and won't be for quite some time -- if ever.
Meanwhile people really don't want them anyway.
If it's so easily traced then why are so many criminal organizations using it? Oh and by the way I highly suspect that for every dumb criminal using cryptocurrency there are at least 10 who aren't dumb and aren't getting caught. You're not going to change my mind: it's perfectly suited for criminals.
A horse is smarter than so-called 'autonomous cars' in significant ways, and a properly trained horse, with a properly trained rider, act as a team; the rider and the horse have ways of communicating with each other, and the rider always has controls (reins, ankles, voice, etc). Not at all the same thing. I'd trust a horse before I'd trust a so-called 'self driving car' with no steering wheel/brake/accelerator pedal/etc. for me to use to control it.
Nice to see I'm not the only one who can think their way through this clearly and see all the flaws and problems with it.
People are starting to realize what the real implications of this are, and they're having the perfectly reasonable, rational, and logical reaction to it: You're either in control of the vehicle that your safety and life depends on, or you are NOT, and if you're not in control, you can't cope with that -- and when you can't reason with, or even communicate in a meaningful way (i.e., talk to/have a conversation with) the machine that your life depends on? Then that's a dealbreaker. I'm sure this technology will be very useful to public safety in the future -- as a sophisticated 'cruise control' feature, and as a fail-safe collision-avoidance system, and perhaps maybe preventing you from going off the road if you fall asleep at the wheel or are otherwise incapacitated suddenly. But people WANT to drive themselves, even if they say they don't sometimes, because we need to be in control of the tool (vehicle), not the other way around. Human nature. So you can forget 'Level 5' autonomous vehicles, no one will accept them in the end.