Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Cute, But ... (Score 1) 128

by Proteus (#44454183) Attached to: Google Chromecast Reviewed; Google Nixes Netflix Discount

If they don't like an app, it doesn't get in the store, and, unless you've broken your device (which is of questionable legality), you're limited to Apple approved apps.

You're limited to Apple-approved native apps. You can "install" HTML5-based apps (including ones with local storage that work offline) without any approval process from Apple. You won't have full access to all the device capabilities, but there you go.

Besides, GP was using examples of media content, not application content. Apple doesn't restrict what content you can view or load, and the formats they support are open standards. Hardly a restrictive regime, App Store aside.

Amazon can delete books you've bought, or even edit the content of books without your consent.

Again, when we're talking about device capabilities, that's a tiny slice. The Kindle supports a great many things that don't have Amazon DRM, and Amazon does not have the capabilities you describe with media that's not DRM-controlled. Again, you can read whatever you want on a Kindle provided it's in one of a handful of formats.

The GP is arguing that Google restricts what you can stream -- that is, content -- to the Chromecast, and likens it to Apple and Amazon. Firstly, it isn't true - you can stream pretty much any content you want to a Chromecast, as long as it'll load in a Chrome tab without 3rd-party plugins (and that means common open standards as well as Flash content). Secondly, even if it were true that Google makes content or content-provider restrictions, that would make them exceptional in the industry. Neither Apple nor Amazon prevent you from viewing content or accessing information you choose, so long as it's in one of the ubiquitous and standard formats.

Comment: Re: nature and consumers (Score 1) 358

by Proteus (#44408037) Attached to: GMO Oranges? Altering a Fruit's DNA To Save It

Spinach doesn't copy its DNA into a host.

No, but viruses often incorporate DNS from hosts, so a virus could grab DNA from spinach and inject it into an orange. That's what dgatwood is talking about -- viruses do this all the time, copying DNA between hosts. Humans are just doing what viruses do already, but with more precision and less randomness.

Comment: Re:nature and consumers (Score 2) 358

by Proteus (#44408027) Attached to: GMO Oranges? Altering a Fruit's DNA To Save It

Show many ANY time in nature where plants have modified themselves with ANIMALS and FISH

That's the Naturalistic Fallacy. Just because something doesn't occur in nature (I'll concede the term "in nature" as meaning "not done by humans") doesn't mean its bad, and just because something does occur in nature doesn't mean it's good.

Your exact argument could be applied to anything artificial: show me ANY time in nature where animals have harnessed electricity to build general-purpose information-processing devices and network them together, for example. Yet I don't see you crying for dismantling the Internet.

Show me ANY time in nature where animals synthesize chemicals that narrowly target diseases, and thus vastly improve their ability to survive. But you're not crying for the end of synthetic medicines.

Show me ANY time in nature where water is systematically treated to destroy infectious agents before it's consumed. But you're not crying for the end of water-treatment facilities.

Show me ANY time in nature where animals engineer vehicles to make transport faster and easier. But you're not campaigning for an end to bicycles.

Comment: Re:Shortsighted techie ... (Score 1) 297

by Proteus (#44407973) Attached to: Google Engineer Wins NSA Award, Then Says NSA Should Be Abolished

cripple the NSA, and you give free and secure communication to all sorts of undesirables. Allow the NSA unchecked, and make people transparent to the Government, (and worse expose them to typically stupid Government dragnet trawling).

That's a false dilemma. We have many more options than an unchecked NSA or a "crippled" NSA (though, note that taking away their ability to spy on US Citizens is only "crippling" in the sense that it would require them to return to their chartered mission as a foreign intelligence service...).

For example, most people aren't arguing that the NSA shouldn't be allowed to collect any of the sort of data they've been caught collecting. Just that it should have limited scope, and that they should have real accountability if they abuse their power. That neither cripples them (despite their claims) nor allows them unchecked, and that's just a simple example.

all electronic communications must be "tappable" unless you want to provide absolutely everyone with a safe channel for communication about their criminal, terrorist, or otherwise hostile business.

It's not quite that simple, even if it seems so on its face. When you make all communication tappable, you don't just allow the government access to communications of suspected bad actors. You also create something that can be abused by people in power (remember that the government is made up of people, and people do stupid things on a regular bases) -- from little things like a government worker using the capability to spy on a spouse to big things like government cracking down on dissent. And you create a system that can be attacked; if the US government can read your email, so can an attacker or a foreign government.

Keep in mind that the government is who defines what "criminal" is. If they have unlimited surveillance power -- even if it's only limited to "criminals" -- then it's a simple matter to change what "criminal" means until they can effectively listen in to any conversation they want. And quash dissent. Remember that almost every important campaign for rights involved "criminal" things -- from the fight for Women's Suffrage to the protests and campaigns for civil rights in the 1960's. These movements did "criminal" things in part to point out that they shouldn't be criminal things. To give the government absolute ability to stop criminal activity would be a very bad thing.

Comment: Re:good (Score 1) 616

by Proteus (#44407841) Attached to: US Promises Not To Kill Or Torture Snowden

Money only buys votes with an uneducated electorate.

While that's almost certainly true, it doesn't follow that:

If voters really wanted to do something about this, they could.

Because most of the country relies on those in power for access to education. There may have been a time in recent memory where the populace was educated enough about how politics and power worked to make these changes, but those in power have been very effective at cutting those cords by controlling the media and education (through cutting funding, setting standards, outright buying media outlets and the like).

In order for it to change, people with money and power would need to put some effort into effectively educating voters. Which means doing the very thing they ultimately are trying to change -- pouring money into the political process.

Comment: Re:That depends on your definition of torture (Score 1) 616

by Proteus (#44407811) Attached to: US Promises Not To Kill Or Torture Snowden

No, the average American doesn't even understand these topics. The core problem with America is that the vast majority of the public are completely uninformed (often by choice) and apathetic about anything that doesn't affect them or someone they know directly.

The result is that we as a country have ceded control to people who want power, and the handful of "hardcore" voting blocs that reliably show up at the polls. We're a Republic of the Minority now.

Comment: Re:SSH keys (Score 1) 339

by Proteus (#44395429) Attached to: Feds Allegedly Demanding User Passwords From Services

Unless you're accessing all your services via SSH, you probably have passwords somewhere; SSH keys are only going to be a defense against access to the boxes you only SSH to. If you use any web application or service you don't self-host and authenticate only through SSH, revealed passwords are going to be an issue.

Yet another argument to move toward 2-factor auth....

Comment: Re:Obligatory sarcasm (Score 2) 107

by Proteus (#44395369) Attached to: Judge Denies Administration Request To Delay ACLU Metadata Lawsuit

Publicly posting all available personal data of judges and their families that serve on the FISA court might also serve to reverse this STASI-like system of secret courts and secret laws.

If only that would work. Unfortunately, when you show people in power that they're vulnerable too, they don't see the light and act for change -- they double-down. They decide that such acts are evidence that they need even more power.

Comment: Re:Cute, But ... (Score 1, Informative) 128

by Proteus (#44395345) Attached to: Google Chromecast Reviewed; Google Nixes Netflix Discount

Your comment is either astonishingly ignorant or really bad trolling:

  • Apple iOS devices play whatever video and audio content you want, provided you supply it in a supported format (H.264 M4V, for example); the supported formats are open standards, and tools to create compatible files are ubiquitous, and many are free. Or you can just install VLC for iOS and use pretty much any format (though it does decoding in software for formats that i-Devices don't have hardware decoders for, which means battery life goes down the shitter).
  • Win8 devices likewise will play whatever content you transfer to them, providing it's in one of the supported formats. Likewise, many of the supported formats are open standards, and tools to create compatible files are readily available. MS puts very few restrictions on what you can install, so adding more media support is trivial.
  • Amazon's Kindle readers only support the AZW format for DRM-protected content, but will read unprotected MOBI, PRC, and TPZ eBook formats out of the box; they also allow you to read plain-text files and have some basic PDF support. The Kindle tablet supports MP4 video using open-standard codecs, just like iOS and Win8 do. All Kindle devices that can play audio support MP3 and Audible.

If it were true that the Chromecast only allowed "Google approved content" as grandparent claims, that would be far more constraining than any of the devices you gave examples of.

Unfortunately for GP, they misunderstand Chromecast's limitations; direct, native streaming is only available for a few Google-approved sources, but anything the Chrome browser plays out of the box (including any HTML5 video, Flash objects, etc.) can be cast to the dongle; it's hardly as limited as "Google-approved sources", more like "stuff using technologies and formats that Google supports in Chrome".

Comment: Re:Huh. (Score 1) 457

by Proteus (#44385471) Attached to: After a User Dies, Apple Warns Against Counterfeit Chargers

The only non-standard part of Apple's charging scheme is the shape of the connector. The AC->DC adapter part is a standard switching power supply, the request on the USB end of the charging cable is compatible with USB Power standards, and so on.

The really proprietary parts of Apple's cable are the bits associated with the data interface (digital audio, control systems, accessory systems, etc.); which is frustrating, but not really surprising at this point considering the 30-pin connector they replaced has been around for a decade.

Comment: Re:Smart move (Score 1) 457

by Proteus (#44385417) Attached to: After a User Dies, Apple Warns Against Counterfeit Chargers

The *cable* carries 5VDC at 1A (or almost 2A for an iPad). The electrocution hazard for 5V devices is entirely in the switching power-supply... the part that takes your wall voltage and drops it to 5VDC. Poorly designing that part can lead to too much power on the cable, etc.

But if you use a decently-designed power supply, even the world's crappiest cable isn't going to be problematic.

"Silent gratitude isn't very much use to anyone." -- G. B. Stearn

Working...