> Mi Casa Verde They really seem to want to use cameras in their packages at least. What devices do you have from them? Where is the footage stored from the cameras?
I would really like to have one installed, but all the wireless ones don't seem to even consider that the attacker might be able to attack electronically first. (It's not even mentioned on most of their websites).
So.. who makes a good security system that is open and secured (means they actually need to update the software!), and ideally will install it for me? I'm fine with a wired system but I still want it to be open...
(Price range: ideally not more than $500, and I would prefer text/phone alerts with no "monitoring")
"The word cult in current popular usage is a pejorative term for a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by the larger society"
Basically, it's just bashing new religions at this point (and a lot of the time coming from the older religions). Pretty good show on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MJP3hWevEE
There are legitimate uses of similar technologies for some of the above purposes, INSIDE of a company/government/or similar.
When you get to 3rd parties using DRM it completely breaks down. DRM is not the right tactic there. I don't want an intricate mess of 3rd parties restricting other 3rd parties in what they can do. That is a security nightmare.
> Wouldn't you want it to self destruct? No. How would you do that? Embed executable code in my medical records? Once someone has my medical records I would prefer assuming that they have them (could have taken screen shots or with an actual camera). Auditing is used quite effectively to find who accessed medical records and fire them.
No, I'm saying they should not be allowed to deploy consumer level DRM to general consumers. Many businesses have legitimate uses for DRM technology, Medical field to limit copying of patient records, Defense, businesses with trade secrets, etc.
you must also be opposed to proprietary software licenses.
I am, but I wouldn't go so far as to make them illegal. I would certainly make some parts of common licenses illegal, like the restriction on studying how the program works, etc.
you can only use access this content on the third sunday of a month while hopping on one foot, they have the right to set those conditions or deny you access if you decline to adhere to them
[citation needed] You've got the problem, I do not believe that is true. In fact, let's say you buy a car from a common dealer and don't fully read the contract and it stipulates that you can only drive it on the third sunday of the month. Do you think a judge would through out that provision? I do.
How is it any more anti-competitive or anti-consumer than copyright in general? If your issue is with copyright why not just come out and say it?
I do have some problems with copyright in the US, but I don't really see why it's relevant. (It is way to long, this mickey mouse copyright we have in the US).
I'm fine not having the right to copy your content, except for purposes considered fair use. I'm not fine with you enforcing that I don't have my fair use rights and that you will are able to follow me around and make sure I don't break your interuption of copyright law.
How is DRM not anti-consumer?
I guess it could theoretically be less anti-competitive. It's making the internet less accesible by any device, which harms the devies that are built by people who don't want to handcuff their users.
In fact, Consumer oriented DRM should be illegal. It's an anti-competive anti-consumer dangerous practice. (I'm totally fine with the military using DRM to protect confidential information, etc).
Outright Ban (or at least tax/warning) on Consumer-level DRM: It's anti-competitive consumer restrictive technology that doesn't help anyone (except I guess those that make it). The music industry has realized this, but other industries haven't. We are wasting bandwidth, silicon, power, and making it much harder for free operating systems to compete.
Consumer right to at least inspect all code Utilities/Others place in their houses/cars: I'm particularly thinking about smart grid technologies. In an ideal world both the utility and the homeowner could run code on the device and verify what the other does. Obviously some areas would be off limit (like the homeowner fully disabling reporting).
Internet providers/Cell phone providers can only provide 1 year contract to consumers. (Consumers being able to move a bit easier may help improve competition).
Internet capable devices need to be supported with security updates for at least 3 years after that company sells the last device.
BAN FAX MACHINES from all government offices and remove the provisions that make them considered "secure". (Sorry, fax machines really annoy me.)
All generic hardware must support at least two operating systems (one of which much be open source). This allows you to repurpose them more easily in the future.
I have a couple potential takers already. Microsoft really messed up with Windows 8 because people are really looking for alternatives. It's been nice to have people ask, "What other choices do I have?"
Slashdot Mirror
This is what happened right before HP gave up on tablets...
Nope, advertisers don't really put that much money into the system.
Excercpt from PATCO's budget (local transit authority):
Net Passenger Revenue: 23,900,000
Advertising: 600,000
Now, they are still operating at a loss, but that's mass transit, they have a huge positive externality.
But they only have contact Sync with Facebook (and SIM card of course).
I would want a privacy oriented organization to not be pushing people to Facebook...
Yea.. I was looking at something similar (although more DIY) in http://ninjablocks.com/
> Mi Casa Verde
They really seem to want to use cameras in their packages at least. What devices do you have from them? Where is the footage stored from the cameras?
I would really like to have one installed, but all the wireless ones don't seem to even consider that the attacker might be able to attack electronically first. (It's not even mentioned on most of their websites).
So.. who makes a good security system that is open and secured (means they actually need to update the software!), and ideally will install it for me? I'm fine with a wired system but I still want it to be open...
(Price range: ideally not more than $500, and I would prefer text/phone alerts with no "monitoring")
But it is free for 501(c)3s.. http://wiki.dreamhost.com/Non-profit_Discount
Hey.. you might want to get that just to have a backup..
> but last I heard Firefox didn't support webm/vp8 only ogg
It's been available for years now. They added support for webm/vp8 around 2010*
For a better comparison see the chart a few lines down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video#Browser_support
*https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2010/05/19/open-web-open-video-and-webm/
If he was able to hack into Prism, that's a worse controversy for the US government. Not a better one.
"The word cult in current popular usage is a pejorative term for a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by the larger society"
Basically, it's just bashing new religions at this point (and a lot of the time coming from the older religions). Pretty good show on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MJP3hWevEE
Also, coming from an Atheist..
http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2013/05/disclosure-timeline-for-vulnerabilities.html
One of two items holding me back...
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3449279%26cid=42850649
When Firefox/Linux supports playing H264 with the video tag it looks to get even easier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQBTWd49j4
There are legitimate uses of similar technologies for some of the above purposes, INSIDE of a company/government/or similar.
When you get to 3rd parties using DRM it completely breaks down. DRM is not the right tactic there. I don't want an intricate mess of 3rd parties restricting other 3rd parties in what they can do. That is a security nightmare.
> Wouldn't you want it to self destruct?
No. How would you do that? Embed executable code in my medical records? Once someone has my medical records I would prefer assuming that they have them (could have taken screen shots or with an actual camera). Auditing is used quite effectively to find who accessed medical records and fire them.
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/40970.wss
Below are the speedtests of two different routers using a wired connection.
Actiontec (about 2011) – 53.22 MB (down) 8.23 (up)
Linksys WRT54G v2 (about 2004) – 23 MB (down) 7.76 (up)
http://bryanquigley.com/libre-software/on-upgrading-routers
No, I'm saying they should not be allowed to deploy consumer level DRM to general consumers. Many businesses have legitimate uses for DRM technology, Medical field to limit copying of patient records, Defense, businesses with trade secrets, etc.
What about a provision that says you are only allowed to run this software on hardware that I have sold you?
You are only allowed to put our gasoline in your car. (Now if they simply don't support other hardware, I'm fine with that).
Or a provision that says you can watch this media any time within the next 24 hours?
I'm more ok with this as long as their enforement mechanism is the law and not spyware/DRM.
you must also be opposed to proprietary software licenses.
I am, but I wouldn't go so far as to make them illegal. I would certainly make some parts of common licenses illegal, like the restriction on studying how the program works, etc.
you can only use access this content on the third sunday of a month while hopping on one foot, they have the right to set those conditions or deny you access if you decline to adhere to them
[citation needed]
You've got the problem, I do not believe that is true. In fact, let's say you buy a car from a common dealer and don't fully read the contract and it stipulates that you can only drive it on the third sunday of the month. Do you think a judge would through out that provision? I do.
How is it any more anti-competitive or anti-consumer than copyright in general? If your issue is with copyright why not just come out and say it?
I do have some problems with copyright in the US, but I don't really see why it's relevant. (It is way to long, this mickey mouse copyright we have in the US).
I'm fine not having the right to copy your content, except for purposes considered fair use. I'm not fine with you enforcing that I don't have my fair use rights and that you will are able to follow me around and make sure I don't break your interuption of copyright law.
How is DRM not anti-consumer?
I guess it could theoretically be less anti-competitive. It's making the internet less accesible by any device, which harms the devies that are built by people who don't want to handcuff their users.
DRM is bad.[1]
HTML5 is good.
If a bad thing is included in something good, that thing is still bad.
Therefore, DRM in HTML5 is bad.
[1] It should be obvious DRM is bad, but: https://www.eff.org/issues/drm
In fact, Consumer oriented DRM should be illegal. It's an anti-competive anti-consumer dangerous practice. (I'm totally fine with the military using DRM to protect confidential information, etc).
I also read that and was worried North Korea (*) had attacked them... but thought the wording was a bit weird.
* Maybe they feel like China backstabbed them for not supporting them in the recent "confrontation".
Outright Ban (or at least tax/warning) on Consumer-level DRM:
It's anti-competitive consumer restrictive technology that doesn't help anyone (except I guess those that make it). The music industry has realized this, but other industries haven't. We are wasting bandwidth, silicon, power, and making it much harder for free operating systems to compete.
Consumer right to at least inspect all code Utilities/Others place in their houses/cars:
I'm particularly thinking about smart grid technologies. In an ideal world both the utility and the homeowner could run code on the device and verify what the other does. Obviously some areas would be off limit (like the homeowner fully disabling reporting).
Internet providers/Cell phone providers can only provide 1 year contract to consumers. (Consumers being able to move a bit easier may help improve competition).
Internet capable devices need to be supported with security updates for at least 3 years after that company sells the last device.
BAN FAX MACHINES from all government offices and remove the provisions that make them considered "secure". (Sorry, fax machines really annoy me.)
All generic hardware must support at least two operating systems (one of which much be open source). This allows you to repurpose them more easily in the future.
More funds for NASA http://www.penny4nasa.org/
Make Weather.gov a better source to get weather directly from
Make USAJobs.gov actually the only website you need to go to for applying for government jobs
Make Navy contracters use standard networking for ships instead of running a bunch of different networks for different systems.
Wow.. I'm going to stop typing now.
Is Glass indestructible?
Can I use Glass while operating a jackhammer?
Is it OK to go scuba diving with Glass?
https://support.google.com/glass/answer/3064131?hl=en&ref_topic=3063354
> Anyway, long rant short: Windows 8 managed to break the ability to turn your PC off!
Gnome 3.0 did that. They eventually reverted it. Impressive how UI people do seem to think alike.. Oh right, Apple somewhat started that trend...
but when Apple does it, it makes it more usable :) /sarcasm
I have a couple potential takers already. Microsoft really messed up with Windows 8 because people are really looking for alternatives. It's been nice to have people ask, "What other choices do I have?"