It should tell you something about the opposing candidates that a majority are willing to not only vote for a dumb orange troll, but according to you also a space alien in a human suit before the alternatives presented.
Though, if you would have said "space alien in a human pantsuit" you may have been closer to one of the opposing candidates available...
You do know that the lowest unemployment level in a decade is saying the same thing as 'the lowest unemployment rate since the Great Recession" right?
You literally said 'it isn't true' and then said the same thing while talking about the 1960s and things that were before the collapse, which is way out of scope for anything being talked about.
I didn't say it was good encryption. It's the modern equivalent of ROT-13. However, the post I was replying to was acting as if it's just an MPEG-2 file on a disc, which is not the case.
The question here is quality - yes, you can point a camera at the screen, or strip HDCP, or any number of other schemes and then recompress it, but you will be introducing quality loss.
In theory, this is the original stream from the disc, in the original HEVC encoding, without the encryption, and without additional loss. If that's the case, it points squarely at defeating the encryption.
The movie may have been from 2013, but the UHD BluRay format was released in 2016. The age of the content on the disc has very little to do with the format and encryption standards used by the disc.
Example: would a UHD BluRay release of Casablanca be encryption free, because the movie was released in 1942? Could they even do it, knowing that the content predates digital technology of any form? How does it already exist on DVD and BluRay?!!
Sounds broken by design. Guess I'll be skipping that one - I have no need to buy physical media that they can turn the lights out on when they get tired of supporting the format 6 years from now.
That's mostly a consequence of applying old information to new technologies. In an analog world, the quality of the interconnect matters. With digital, it's just a matter of having an interconnect that gets a good enough margin on the signal-to-noise ratio, and you let the DAC do the rest.
The "audiophile scene" is made up of a distribution of people that includes about 3 to 5 percent that actually know what they are talking about and doing, usually from a background of being an audio or electrical engineer and absolutely knowing how these things work, and >95% of people talking out of ignorance and being taken by reprehensible companies that see an opportunity to defraud ignorant people with money to spare.
'good eyesight' in this context also includes anyone wearing corrective lenses, as there is no reason not to if you have them, they are properly fitted, and not broken. It's not like we're talking about useless stereoscopic "3D" here where anyone that wears glasses is instantly annoyed.
That's where I'm at too for work, only with VirtualBox. I maybe use it once a week for 10 minutes or less to perform a task that is an absolute ass pain if you aren't using Windows.
Okay, but that's moving the goalposts. A dongle is not required to listen to music. Bluetooth may not be an adequate solution for you for several legitimate reasons (audio quality, battery, etc.) but saying that the phone requires a dongle to listen to music is pure FUD, and I think you know that.
"I don't want a dongle to listen to music" quickly becomes something else when it's discovered that you don't actually have to have a dongle to listen to music. Amazing!
No you don't, should you need to. Apple actually went out of their way to make installing Windows side-by-side with macOS easier via their Boot Camp Assistant than it is to install Windows on standard PC hardware. They even create the installation media for you, complete with driver integration - they're a better Windows OEM than most of the actual Windows OEMs.
You do know that these bills aren't actually written by the Senator, right? They will tell some aides to mark something up, and then they go over it and give the aides changes while they go and sell the idea to other Senators to get their votes, and get it through committee.
He's a manager - he needs to understand the 20,000 foot view. Unfortunately, these guys don't seem to even get that. This bill was probably written by lobbyists and given to the Senator with a nice big contribution check to his re-election campaign.
Every system ships with it turned off unless you have some kind of VAR service that images your system and turns it on before you receive it.
It's far more likely that if you have implemented the use of this stuff on your network, that you have an automatic provisioning process to turn it on when it first hits the network.
There is remote provisioning for Intel ME / Intel vPro, but it's not the easiest thing in the world to set up, much less spoof. For example, you would need to have a certificate signed by a public provider that is specifically signed for Intel ME provisioning, and the domain on that cert needs to match the domain being offered by DHCP on the network. This ensures that a public CA has basically signed off on your ownership of that domain, and that you also own your network to a decent degree by controlling the infrastructure.
Can all of that be beaten? Probably. But at that point there's probably far easier exploits to take advantage of.
How is Microsoft going to patch something happening in the hardware underneath their OS, without the OS knowing anything about it? In case you haven't played with Intel AMT or vPro, it has some pretty amazing capabilities for remote management, including being able to persist remote control sessions across OS reboots, including being able to enter BIOS / uEFI setup and make changes, as well as mount an ISO image from a network volume as a 'physical' disk and boot off of it.
How could an OS that isn't even running patch that?
It's likely, they would just need to hit the hotkey to configure the management engine during POST. But, if they have physical access, you're already had anyway unless you encrypt your disk and have passwords enabled everywhere possible by the fact that they could just image the drive and walk away.
You seem to have forgotten a small thing called taxes. If you make 100k/year you don't actually ever see 100k in that year, especially in California. You might see 70k. Maybe.
I found this one about Time Warner / Charter / Spectrum a month ago when I was visiting my family: they are traffic shaping on the port that Plex uses (32400). I couldn't reliably stream video from my own server to my tablet at either my brother's house (Comcast) or my parents' house (Frontier) until I opened a VPN connection to my home and then it worked perfectly.
I have a problem with this - what do they care what I'm using the upload for, as long as it's legal? Now I'll just be sure to put everything through a VPN when I need to interact with systems I have at my house, and they can just see a whole lot of TCP 443. Douchebags.
Slashdot Mirror
Childish idiocy?
By the way, they're 'singing' of that wasn't about impeachment, it was about the 'yea' votes having to face the voters in a scant 18 months.
Whoever claimed it was?
It should tell you something about the opposing candidates that a majority are willing to not only vote for a dumb orange troll, but according to you also a space alien in a human suit before the alternatives presented.
Though, if you would have said "space alien in a human pantsuit" you may have been closer to one of the opposing candidates available...
You do know that the lowest unemployment level in a decade is saying the same thing as 'the lowest unemployment rate since the Great Recession" right?
You literally said 'it isn't true' and then said the same thing while talking about the 1960s and things that were before the collapse, which is way out of scope for anything being talked about.
Great Recession not Great Depression.
I didn't say it was good encryption. It's the modern equivalent of ROT-13. However, the post I was replying to was acting as if it's just an MPEG-2 file on a disc, which is not the case.
The question here is quality - yes, you can point a camera at the screen, or strip HDCP, or any number of other schemes and then recompress it, but you will be introducing quality loss.
In theory, this is the original stream from the disc, in the original HEVC encoding, without the encryption, and without additional loss. If that's the case, it points squarely at defeating the encryption.
The movie may have been from 2013, but the UHD BluRay format was released in 2016. The age of the content on the disc has very little to do with the format and encryption standards used by the disc.
Example: would a UHD BluRay release of Casablanca be encryption free, because the movie was released in 1942? Could they even do it, knowing that the content predates digital technology of any form? How does it already exist on DVD and BluRay?!!
You know that DVD is encrypted too, right?
Sounds broken by design. Guess I'll be skipping that one - I have no need to buy physical media that they can turn the lights out on when they get tired of supporting the format 6 years from now.
That's mostly a consequence of applying old information to new technologies. In an analog world, the quality of the interconnect matters. With digital, it's just a matter of having an interconnect that gets a good enough margin on the signal-to-noise ratio, and you let the DAC do the rest.
The "audiophile scene" is made up of a distribution of people that includes about 3 to 5 percent that actually know what they are talking about and doing, usually from a background of being an audio or electrical engineer and absolutely knowing how these things work, and >95% of people talking out of ignorance and being taken by reprehensible companies that see an opportunity to defraud ignorant people with money to spare.
'good eyesight' in this context also includes anyone wearing corrective lenses, as there is no reason not to if you have them, they are properly fitted, and not broken. It's not like we're talking about useless stereoscopic "3D" here where anyone that wears glasses is instantly annoyed.
I guess some people just like to argue though.
That's where I'm at too for work, only with VirtualBox. I maybe use it once a week for 10 minutes or less to perform a task that is an absolute ass pain if you aren't using Windows.
Okay, but that's moving the goalposts. A dongle is not required to listen to music. Bluetooth may not be an adequate solution for you for several legitimate reasons (audio quality, battery, etc.) but saying that the phone requires a dongle to listen to music is pure FUD, and I think you know that.
Moving the goalposts is fun.
"I don't want a dongle to listen to music" quickly becomes something else when it's discovered that you don't actually have to have a dongle to listen to music. Amazing!
You know any Bluetooth audio device works with an iphone 7, right?
No you don't, should you need to. Apple actually went out of their way to make installing Windows side-by-side with macOS easier via their Boot Camp Assistant than it is to install Windows on standard PC hardware. They even create the installation media for you, complete with driver integration - they're a better Windows OEM than most of the actual Windows OEMs.
If the user experience is horrible and you can't find / use all that extra functionality, does that functionality really exist?
You do know that these bills aren't actually written by the Senator, right? They will tell some aides to mark something up, and then they go over it and give the aides changes while they go and sell the idea to other Senators to get their votes, and get it through committee.
He's a manager - he needs to understand the 20,000 foot view. Unfortunately, these guys don't seem to even get that. This bill was probably written by lobbyists and given to the Senator with a nice big contribution check to his re-election campaign.
Every system ships with it turned off unless you have some kind of VAR service that images your system and turns it on before you receive it.
It's far more likely that if you have implemented the use of this stuff on your network, that you have an automatic provisioning process to turn it on when it first hits the network.
There is remote provisioning for Intel ME / Intel vPro, but it's not the easiest thing in the world to set up, much less spoof. For example, you would need to have a certificate signed by a public provider that is specifically signed for Intel ME provisioning, and the domain on that cert needs to match the domain being offered by DHCP on the network. This ensures that a public CA has basically signed off on your ownership of that domain, and that you also own your network to a decent degree by controlling the infrastructure.
Can all of that be beaten? Probably. But at that point there's probably far easier exploits to take advantage of.
How is Microsoft going to patch something happening in the hardware underneath their OS, without the OS knowing anything about it? In case you haven't played with Intel AMT or vPro, it has some pretty amazing capabilities for remote management, including being able to persist remote control sessions across OS reboots, including being able to enter BIOS / uEFI setup and make changes, as well as mount an ISO image from a network volume as a 'physical' disk and boot off of it.
How could an OS that isn't even running patch that?
It's likely, they would just need to hit the hotkey to configure the management engine during POST. But, if they have physical access, you're already had anyway unless you encrypt your disk and have passwords enabled everywhere possible by the fact that they could just image the drive and walk away.
You seem to have forgotten a small thing called taxes. If you make 100k/year you don't actually ever see 100k in that year, especially in California. You might see 70k. Maybe.
Or do what I did - get a job working for a company based in San Mateo County, but work remotely from your low cost of living in the Midwest.
You can't buy a parking space in San Mateo for what I paid for a 2500 sq. ft. home.
I found this one about Time Warner / Charter / Spectrum a month ago when I was visiting my family: they are traffic shaping on the port that Plex uses (32400). I couldn't reliably stream video from my own server to my tablet at either my brother's house (Comcast) or my parents' house (Frontier) until I opened a VPN connection to my home and then it worked perfectly.
I have a problem with this - what do they care what I'm using the upload for, as long as it's legal? Now I'll just be sure to put everything through a VPN when I need to interact with systems I have at my house, and they can just see a whole lot of TCP 443. Douchebags.