Thank you a thousand times to the link to the handbook! Now I can ditch the boring William Stallings crypto book which I never finished AND I don't need a physical copy!
My guess is that there is nothing technical preventing separation but rather economical or time constraints because security was an afterthought. Or it never was considered in the first place, seeing how well designed and secure the average keyless entry system appears to be.
Does anyone know why you want encryption directly in the filesystem rather than the layered approach being offered for years by the dm-crypt kernel filesystem? The Phoronix article mentions that is intended for Android systems, so my immidiate thinking was that it had something to do with flash storage specifics. Generally I do not like it when a generic, simple solution like dm-crypt gets reimplemented at another layer, increasing complexity, but maybe there is a reason for this?
Another article mentions F2FS (Flash-Friendly File System) as a possible merge target. Suggests it serves needs for flash memory. I guess exposing the filesystem structure/metadata without actually revealing the data itself makes more efficient flash utilization possible. Or maybe it makes it easier for law enforcement to bypass it, if your tinfoil hat is on.
The mailing list entry itself is here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane....
Links to a design document in the mailing list was dead at time of writing.
It seems you can only be a good citizen if you spend money, and spend frivolously. Personally I like to save money for the fun of it and then I give it to people in need. The irony of that being, by inference, evil is great fun.
In Sweden, we are actually allowed to share music between friends because we actually have fees on blank media. I am not sure that is allowed for "ripped" music, perhaps only full disc-to-disc copies. Nevertheless, if legal, you could even do this on "crowdsourcing" basis with local friends..
Everyone who imports, manufactures or sells storage media (harddrives, optical media, game consoles, phones, mp3 players etc.) are required to pay these fees. This only applies when sold to consumers; corporate customers are exempt. What is weird is that game consoles, which are typically unable to even be used for copying, are covered by this. Every year the organizations keeps expanding the scope of the laws. There have been talks about a generic 'broadband tax' for years. In the current example, I belive that is the end goal; start with something people think is unimportant, like optical media in today's world. Get the legal boilerplate in place, then scope creep with the argument that it 'has to keep up with the advancing technology'.
I hope this help you guys to understand the consequences of such a system. Sources:
- https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_artisters_och_musikers_intresseorganisation (Swedish)
- https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_Tons%C3%A4ttares_Internationella_Musikbyr%C3%A5 (Swedish)
- https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyswede (Swedish)
I agree with you. I use a Motorola Moto G 2nd gen dual SIM myself, costing about $200 new. That is my upper limit for a phone, simply because it is disposable in my eyes. No amount of cheap replacement parts helps if it gets stolen. I would never pay for a top-of-the-line unit; less so when I get a device whose performance might make it useless once new upgrades of the software rolls out. The allure of the expensive units has always been that they usually lasts longer.
The crux is that 'ethics' and 'sustainability' always gets used as a crutch for holding up an otherwise sub-par product. It smells of snake-oil, of selling to gullible hippies; people will fear being made fools off. I do not belive that ethical and sustainable products would have to be more than 20%-30% more expensive than comparable products, if done right. But most of the time it seems like a way for people in the supply chain to make more money by targeting people who do not care about price. This in fact hampers adoption of these products.
But as every upstanding citizen knows, suffering is the sign of morality! Buying second-hand is giving in to the evil temptations of compromise; the priests of Order of the Invisible Hand will tell ye that "if you do'nt like don't buy!"
It is only the blessed copyright holders that may tell you what is a fair and working market.
True creative genius comes from group thinking, control and monetization.
Why do you hate The Economy?
My favorite Jobs quote (though I would never buy an Apple product myself). Some projects should perhaps die. In the software realm a lot of projects live unnaturally long lives; stagnating into maintenance with cosmetic rather than functional innovation.
It feels like a lot of projects, FOSS or commercial, has forgotten how to build better mousetraps and now focuses solely on mousetraps with rounded corners or some cloud tie-in service.
In the case of Mozilla I have no idea what they are doing now. It gained traction because the existing monoculture was stagnating. Remember the days when people got excited about tabbed browsing? Innovation by window management in an application. Then came the adblockers. They were all innovations that benefitted both developers and users alike. Better mousetraps.
The last round of "innovation" has only helped to line the pockets of the foundation itself, integrating advertisement and third-party proprietary stuff into the browser.
"Choose your enemies well, for it is them you will most come to resemble."
I guess Firefox chose Chrome and Google.
They started to cripple the Linux client as well; since last year it ONLY supports PulseAudio. And it natively supported pure ALSA before that, so it is a feature being removed and replaced with an inferior solution.
Luckily someone created apulse, an emulation layer that allows you to run Skype without the hentai-tentacle-monster known as PulseAudio:
The best part is how they tout the fact that "Hi there, Skype works without Pulse Audio for features like chat as well as sharing files and photos." on their blog, like anyone would use Skype for the text chat features, and that it would somehow make up for the lost functionality: http://blogs.skype.com/2014/06...
For all the talk of "personalized" ads, what is being shoved at us is typically corporate propaganda, shown in poor context and without any finesse. Intercut into any media which people DO care about, it can little more than detract from the value of that content. Most disturbingly of all, the industry representatives seems to reject this notion altogether, throwing up the aforementioned defense of "it pays the bills!" as one would a cross to a vampire.
But now they HAVE the solution, and that solution is basically advertisements disguised as "legitimate" journalism. Because deceiving your audience is a surefire way to create a long-standing, trusting relationship.
If you want an example of what the future of advertising will probably look like, head over to the show "Triangulation" at Twit.TV. They have made time for their sponsors inside the show proper. It is integrated as any other segment of the show, but with full disclosure.
I used to fast forward past it. I don't any more, because once I got used to it, it did not offend me any more. And it is far, far more effective on me than I would like to admit. It creates a trust between me, the consumer and the author of the show. It is the future for advertisment. A future where no global tracking networks and excessive off-site resource loading is required.
And probably a lot less dedicated advertisers.
The kid started to sell the pictures to parents, having confirmed with his teacher that he indeed held copyright to the pictures. Apparently the school did not take lightly to him earning money using school equipment and first incorrectly claimed that they owned the rights to the images. The kid knew more about copyright than they did, so they then changed their allegations to him invading peoples privacy by publishing photos where they could be identified on his Flickr page.
IANAL, but that might actually have some standing as opposed to the intial copyright claims. Funny how copyright has turned into a general-purpose, first-line-of-offense tool for media control these days. Anyway, the school itself actually did the same thing, by allegedly posting similar images on their social meda pages.
It should be possible to post images where the models can not be identified or where they have signed a model release form. Selling pictures to the parents should never be a problem.
I find it rather surprising that such an enterprising artist would not be supported. I can understand that the school might not want him to monopolize the equipment or similar but I doubt that was the case here.
The threats about being 'reported to the IRS' are also dubious; as long as he declares that income I doubt it would be any problems? In Sweden, where I live, you can earn quite a bit of income on the side, as a hobby, as long as you report it and pay taxes. Which you just do on a field in the income tax form.
Is there more to this story? We have no comment from the school (they have not responded). Maybe the school expected to be able to use these photos for free? Or maybe someones buddy sports photographer felt threatened by this kid's artistic merit and sent the principals after him?
I agree fully; I recently bought a 48" Samsung 5000-series HDTV without any "smart" features for this reason. Basically I would be happy to remove the tuner and speakers as well, since it will be hooked up to a PC and external amplifier and speakers. However, we are a minority; this is the reason most TV stores still display some compressed, crappy TV signal on their exhibition screens.
To me it would make the most sense to display a fully uncompressed demo movie which could test/show all the different TV sets image quality fully. However, in practice most people just view the same old SDTV signal, and to a large degree what they care about is the scaling ability and motion compensation features. Or at least that what the store clerk wants them to look at. My experience is that even an old crappy, cheap laptop will outperform most TV sets in terms of output quality. Just feed the TV 1080P with 1:1 pixelmapping and do all the processing on your Linux box.
What further amazes me is how crappy your average remote control is these days. Back in the day we had a VCR remote that you could literally bounce of two walls, from another room and it would still register with the receiver. The ones sold today is more like a laser-tag gun when used. I mean, yes the old remote was larger and it was a more expensive piece of equipment. But have you seen the end user experience with a crappy remote? It is like tryng to eat a steak with plastic, single-use cutlery.
It could also be a move to get some sort of SSL/HTTPS MITM scheme into place, allowing inspection of traffic previously invisible to them. Certain governmental agencies would probably like that as well, since it allows "passive" interception without deploying software at the end points.
The reason ad-blocking is interesting is because it is something your customers will applaud you for doing; however, it might be to the detriment of the customers in the long run. It could also lower the customer charge, if advertisement agencies are forced to bear some of the costs.
It would be interesting to see how the CA infrastructure for mobile devices looks. Can carriers tamper with the CA remotely, using privilieged access to the device either during factory preparation or via OTA/(U)SIM-card access?
It will be an entertaining show, since some advertisers in Germany has already sued Adblock Plus: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt... Or maybe it won't and they are all in on it! Tinfoil hats on!
If you want to go all-out paranoid, remote-access and hardware-based authentication for online banking is already moving into chipset and CPU. That could possibly help identifying and tracking down crackers. Tracking physical media at the point of sale is another long shot. Today it is mandatory for stores in Sweden to inform a special collecting agency (for Public Service television) whenever someone buys a television, for example.
Sounds like that would infringe someones "intellectual property", and you know what happens then..